“first appeal”

AppealsSection 246ASection 246A5,395 judgments

The decision most relied on for first appeal is CIT v. Union Tyres (240 ITR 556), cited in 135 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on first appeal

CIT v. Union Tyres

240 ITR 556 · 1999 · High Court

135

citing judgments

The first appellate authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), cannot enhance an assessment by considering a new scope or source of income that was not part of the original assessment proceedings. Its power to enhance under Section 251(1)(a) is restricted to what was originally assessed.

Sanjay Sawhney v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax

116 Taxmann.com 701 · 2020 · High Court

citing judgments

Rule 27 of the ITAT Rules allows a respondent to defend a favourable order of the CIT(A) by raising grounds decided against them, even without filing an appeal or cross-objection. Such issues can be raised orally and for the first time before the Tribunal.

Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT

156 ITR 54 · 1985 · High Court

citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit and adjudicate a new legal ground for the first time, even if not raised in earlier appellate proceedings, provided its omission was neither willful nor unreasonable.

Kiran Singh & Ors. v. Chaman Paswan & Ors.

1 SCR 117 · 1955 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A decree or proceeding initiated by an authority without jurisdiction is a nullity, void ab initio, and its invalidity can be raised at any stage, including in collateral proceedings or for the first time on appeal, as a defect of jurisdiction cannot be cured even by consent.

CIT v. S. Chenniappa Mudaliar

74 ITR 41 · 1969 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The first appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal for default without disposing of the grounds on merits. Dismissal without going into the merits is not justified.

Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax

408 ITR 500 · 2018 · High Court

citing judgments

A tribunal can exercise its discretion to admit an additional ground of appeal, even if raised for the first time, provided it considers the facts and circumstances of the case.

CIT v. Geo Industries and Insecticides (1) Pvt Ltd.

96 TTJ 211 · 2005 · ITAT

citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) can adjudicate a fresh claim raised for the first time before it, provided it is permissible under the law.

Ramco Cements Ltd. v. DCIT

373 ITR 146 · 2015 · High Court

citing judgments

An assessee can make a claim of deduction for the first time before the appellate authorities.

Judgments citing first appeal

N R Farms Private Limited, Nagpur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward - 2(2), Nagpur

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 251/NAG/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryn.R. Farms Private Limited, Ito, Ward-2(2), Nagpur. Flat No. 302, Swami Sadan, Vs. Gpo Square, Civil Lines, Nagpur Pan: Aaecn 4552 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Ld. AdvcoateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 115BSection 148Section 250Section 68

u/sec. 68 of the Act, taxing the same u/sec. 115BBE of the Act. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner mainly by considering the fact that Assessee could not submit any material

Deepak Ferumal Desaraje, Amravati vs. ITO, Ward 1, Amravati

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 236/NAG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrydeepak Ferumal Desaraje, Ito, Ward-1, Amravati Near Mithu Chakki, Rampuri Vs. Camp, Amravvati-444603. Pan: Afypd 1982 M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 250

Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that there was also a delay of approximately four months in filing of first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. Before the Ld. Commissioner in the appeal memo, Assessee has stated that due to change of consultant, the Assessee came ... before passing the impugned order, did not issue any notice for giving opportunity to the Assessee to substantiate the delay occurred in filing of first appeal. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that justice would be met by remanding the case to the file of Ld. Commissioner

Shri Pandurang Sansthan Deulgaon Mali, Mehkar vs. ITO Ward-2, Exemp, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 487/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Pandurang Sansthan Ito (Exemption), Deulgaon Mali At Post Deulgaon Ward-2, Nagpur. Vs. Mahi, Mehkar-443001 Pan: Aagts 8497 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250

ground that Form No. 10B was not filed electronically along with return. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said disallowance/ addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by holding that the Assessee

Yogesh Shrikisan Agrawal, Gondia vs. ITO Ward-1, Gondia

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 447/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryyogesh Shrikisan Agrawal, Ito, Ward-1, Gondia Malguzar Compound, Vs. Ganeshnagar, Gondia-441601. Pan: Adtpa 0913 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

Assessee, being aggrieved against reopening of the case u/sec. 147 of the Act as well as addition on merit, challenged the same by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. The Ld.Commissioner not only affirmed the reopening proceedings (Yogesh Shrikisan Agrawal) u/sec. 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act but also

Shri Sant Narhari Nagari Shahkar Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Bhandra vs. ITO, Ward -2, Bhandara

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 431/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryshri Sant Narhari Nagari Ito, Ward-2, Bhandara Shahkar Pat Sanstha Maryadit, R.No. 1/2 Nagar Vs. Palika Shivaji Chowk, Pauni, Bhandra-441910. Pan: Aakts 3987 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Hiranji, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 194HSection 250Section 40Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80PSection 80P(5)

account of disallowance of provision for bad debts. 6. The Assessee being aggrieved, challenged the said disallowances by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner affirmed the said disallowances. 3 7. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record

Amogh Gajanan Sawant, Yavatmal vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-3, Nagpur

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 334/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryamogh Gajanan Sawant, Dcit/Acit, Cirlce-3, 4, Adit Enterprises, Matrushakti Nagpur. Apartment, Vinayak Computer Accounting Services, Civil Lines, Vs. Behind Ranade Hospital, Yavatmal, Maharashtra.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jakhotai, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 250

income, which was claimed as payment received towards share of common area maintenance charges. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, against the aforesaid additions, filed first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of issuing various notices, eventually made no compliance. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner

Brij Mohan Joshi, Sendhwa vs. Ward Sendhwa, Sendhwa

In the result appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 351/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshibrij Mohan Joshi, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 3, Behind Of Goi Wala Ward Sendhwa Vs. Building, Ram Katora Mohalla, Sendhwa

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 44ASection 68

which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the 1st appeal of the assessee

Harish Chandra Gavli, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhabua

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 274/IND/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi**

Section 144Section 253(5)

Date of Hearing | | | 22.09.2025 | | | Date of Pronouncement | | | 23.09.2025 | | # आदेश **/ O R D E R** ### **Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:** Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 31.12.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi ["CIT(A)"] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 20.11.2018 passed ... small delay of 13 days in filing present appeal before ITAT. Further, there was also a delay of 133 days in filing first-appeal before CIT(A). Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit on stamp. Referring

Arp Securities Limited, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(1), Indore

ITA 218/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68

Arp Securities Limited, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 150/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68

quantum assessment. The other appeal No.ITA/Ind/218/Ind/2025 is on penalty. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers the first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the 1st appeal of the assessee ... also pleaded by the Ld. AR during the hearing that in Form No.35 the e-mail id was of old counsel as the first appeal was filed by the old counsel. In the month of January,2025 the Management logged into the portal and found that the first appeal order

Bhim Singh, Jaipur vs. I.T.O, Ward 4(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 740/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.740/JPR/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Bhim Singh C-24, Ambabari Metal Colony Jaipur - 302 023 बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward 4(1) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: CFRPS 5909A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri G.M. Mehta, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of He

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT-DR

Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

which has been refuted well as per discussion in foregoing paras Therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the IT. Act are hereby initiated.’’ In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessees as mentioned hereinabove i.e. to say confirmed the addition of Rs.11

Neel Kumar Ajmera, Indore vs. The A.C.I.T 4 (1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 234/IND/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 254

Anoop Singh CIT-DR Date of Hearing 17.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 22.09.2025 3Tg3v0 RD ER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 20.02.2019 in Appeal No. IT- 10867/17-18 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-II, Indore [“CIT(A)”"] which in turn arises ... vide order dated 30.12.2011 at a total income of Rs. 65,91,95,580/-. Aggrieved by AO’s order, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal. Thereafter, both the revenue and assessee filed their respective appeals to ITAT, Indore bench registered as “IT(SS)A No. 183/Ind/2013

Jaspal Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, Ward 6(1), Mohali

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 803/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Nalin K.Nohria (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR a/w Shri

Section 143(3)

Keeping in mind the principles of natural justice and considering the possibility of communication gaps during faceless regime, we condone the delay in first appeal and accept the prayer of Ld. AR. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored back to the file

Income Tax Officer, Rishi Nagar Ludhiana vs. Nishi Garg, Ludhiana

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 401/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: us. The Ld. CIT-DR has opposed remand back of the matter.

For Appellant: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur (CIT)(Virtual) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Bhalla (CA)-Ld. AR

Section 147Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

Lacs u/s 69A for want of any representation from the assessee. Considering this fact and in view of submissions made by the assessee during first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) exercised remand power in terms of proviso to Sec.251(1)(a) and directed Ld. AO to make fresh assessment. So aggrieved ... matter. 2. We are of the considered opinion that the assessment was framed on best judgment basis. Considering assessee’s submissions / evidences during first appeal which would have material bearing on the assessment of the assessee, Ld. AO was directed to make fresh assessment. In our considered opinion

Mr. Rohit Vallabhdas Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1910/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11 Rohit Vallabhdas Shah Income Tax Officer, B-303, Dwarka Apartment Ward 32(3)(2), Vs. Daulat Nagar, Borivali, Mumbai Mumbai – 400066 (Pan: Accps2392B) (Assessee) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Gunjan Kakkad, Advocate Revenue : Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit-32, Mumbai, Vide Order Dated 25.03.2019 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income Tax Officer, Ward-32(3)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 17.06.2016 For Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Has Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order By Exercising Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax Failed To Appreciate That The View Of The Assessing Officer Could Have Been Substituted In Exercise Of Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The View Taken By The Assessing Officer Was A Plausible View & Thus, The Commissioner Has Erred In Invoking The Powers Under Section 263 Of The Act. 4. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Could Not Have Set Aside The Assessment Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan Kakkad, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

passed on 16.11.2019 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 263. 5. Against this order giving effect assessment completed by ld. Assessing Officer, assessee filed the first appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 08.01.2020. Ld. CIT(A) taking note of the factual position and relying upon certain judicial precedents, dismissed the appeal ... addition of unexplained bogus purchases of Rs. 63,70,738/- is upheld u/s 69C of the Act.” 6. Against the dismissal of the first appeal, assessee went in appeal before the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in ITA No.4202/Mum/2023, for which the order was pronounced on 03.05.2024. The Coordinate Bench

Shree Ghatkopar Sarvajanik Jivdaya Khatu, Mumbai vs. ITO Exem Ward 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5551/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Shree Ghatkopar Sarvajanik Income Tax Officer, Exem Jivdaya Khatu Ward-2(3), Jivdaya Lane Agra Road, Mumbai Vs. Ghatkopar, Mumbai – 400086 (Pan: Aabts9826R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Advocate and Ravi Ganatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(3)

delay in filing of Form-10 and non specific purpose given therein, claim of exemption u/s. 11 was disallowed. Ld. CIT(A) in the first appeal took note of the facts and observation of ld. AO and in a cryptic and non-speaking manner dismissed the appeal of the assessee

ITO(TDS), Bilaspur vs. Secl, Bilaspur, Secl Hasdeo Area

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

ITA 301/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

whether first appellate authority has a power to remand any issue for fresh adjudication to assessing officer where the order challenged in first appeal is passed otherwise than u/s 144 of the Act? ITAT-Raipur Page 3 of 16 SECL Group Vs ACIT(TDS), Raipur ... allow the relief after due verification. As jointly solidified by the rival parties, these sub grounds (a) to (h) of ground 2 assailed in first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) were indisputably not only intrinsically but also interictally linked with each other. 7. As we note that, the order

ITO(TDS), Bilaspur vs. Secl, Bilaspur, West Jhaggrakhand

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

ITA 300/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

ITO(TDS), Bilaspur vs. Secl, Bilaspur

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

ITA 299/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

ITO(TDS), Bilaspur vs. Secl, Bilaspur, West Jkd Colliery

Appeals stands PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in aforestated terms

ITA 298/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshali