← All Phrases

“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
87
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
59
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
55
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
40
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
32
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
30
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
28
citing judgments

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

Judgments citing first appeal

Panchamrit Real Estates Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Gurgoan

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee in ITA

ITA 2654/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

dismissed the penalty Appeals filed by the Assessee. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that all the First Appeals filed by the Assessee challenging both quantum as well as penalty have been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) without hearing the Assessee which is in violation ... principals of natural justice. Further submitted that while deciding the first appeal without dealt all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee and in a cryptic manner the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the orders impugned. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeals. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relying

Panchamrit Real Estates Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee in ITA

ITA 2600/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

dismissed the penalty Appeals filed by the Assessee. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that all the First Appeals filed by the Assessee challenging both quantum as well as penalty have been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) without hearing the Assessee which is in violation ... principals of natural justice. Further submitted that while deciding the first appeal without dealt all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee and in a cryptic manner the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the orders impugned. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeals. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relying

Panchamrit Real Estates Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee in ITA

ITA 2599/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

dismissed the penalty Appeals filed by the Assessee. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that all the First Appeals filed by the Assessee challenging both quantum as well as penalty have been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) without hearing the Assessee which is in violation ... principals of natural justice. Further submitted that while deciding the first appeal without dealt all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee and in a cryptic manner the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the orders impugned. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeals. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relying

Panchamrit Real Estates Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee in ITA

ITA 2598/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Naveen Chandra

dismissed the penalty Appeals filed by the Assessee. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that all the First Appeals filed by the Assessee challenging both quantum as well as penalty have been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) without hearing the Assessee which is in violation ... principals of natural justice. Further submitted that while deciding the first appeal without dealt all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee and in a cryptic manner the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the orders impugned. Thus, sought for allowing the Appeals. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative relying

Meena Swarup, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2050/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Mrs. Meena Swarup, Vs Dcit, 397, Mandakini Enclave, Circle-3(1)(2), New Delhi-110019. Intl. Tax., Pan-Amrps5792E New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri R.S.Ahuja, Ca & Shri P.S.Sodhi, Adv. Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am :

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

bogus made the addition of the same by invoking the provision of section 68 of the Act. 3. In first appeal, Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO thus, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- (A) “That on the facts

Vijay Laxmanrao Peshane, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(5), Nagpur

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

ITA 58/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryvijay Laxmanrao Peshane, Ito, Ward-4(5), Nagpur 1, Gdikhana, Mahal, Nagpur Vs. Pan: Awmpp 5763 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Milind Bhusari, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

made addition of Rs. 26,34,000/- being unexplained money u/sec. 69A of the Act against which, the Assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who though issued three notices to the Assessee, however, Assessee eventually made no compliance and, therefore, in the constrained circumstances and in the absence

Rupa Abhay Vyas, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 5(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 366/NAG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Jain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250

long term capital of Rs.51,07,324/- as determined by the AO. 4. Though the Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities, eventually made no compliance and therefore the Ld. Commissioner in the constrained

Anuradha Pravin Pote, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Amrawati

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

ITA 350/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryanuradha Pravin Pote, Ito, Ward-5, Amravati. Rathi Nagar, Amravati-444603. Vs. Pan: Aatpp 8804 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shikha P. Loya, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

being ‘unexplained credit/ income’ u/sec. 68 of the Act. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee affirming the addition and thus, Assessee being aggrieved

Ramkrushna Narayan Kanzode, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(5), Nagpur

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

ITA 271/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2015-16 Mr. Ramkrushna Narayan Income Tax Officer Kanzode, Ward 4(5) Nagpur Plot No 95, Near Jyoti Kirana, Bsnl Building Seminary Vs. Sham Nagar, Hills, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur-440001. Nagpur-440024. Pan: Dpbpk6038B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ld. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.02.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Vide Assessment Order Dated 28.12.2018 U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153C Of The Act, Made An Addition Of Rs.34,77,643/- Being Disallowance On Account Of Long Term Capital Gain.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, Ld. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250

Rs.34,77,643/- being disallowance on account of long term capital gain. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of sending various notices, made no compliance. Therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner decided

B P Ergo Employee Credit Co-Operative Society Maryadit, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Nagpur

In the result, Assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 252/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry**

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Bahri, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 3Section 80P(2)(d)

banks i.e. Central Bank, ICICI Bank and Sahara India fixed deposits. **4.** The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged the said addition by filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording three opportunities, eventually made no compliance and, therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed

Pratik Yogesh Jaiswal, Yavatmal vs. ITO Ward -1, Yavatmal

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

ITA 169/NAG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrypratik Yogesh Jaiswal, Ito, Ward-1, Yavatmal. Chhoti Gujri Road, Itwara Vs. Chowk, Yavatmal-445001. Pan: Asrpj 7342 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Gandhi, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 250

evidences, such as, bills and vouchers, bank statements evidencing payments etc. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged the said additions by filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities and/or issuing various notices, eventually made no compliance and, therefore in the constrained circumstances

The Somalwar Academy Education Societies Employees Co-Op Credit Society Mar., Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, War 1(5), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 17/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur18 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80A(5)Section 80P

vide intimation/order dated 04/07/2019 u/sec. 143(1) of the Act and, therefore, the Assessee challenged the said disallowance/addition by filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner vide impugned order confirmed the aforesaid addition/disallowance by dismissing the appeal of the Assessee mainly

Mo. Shariph Kureshi, Sikar vs. ITO Ward-4 Sikar, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

already declared by the assessee and the amount transferred by cheque and cash withdrawals and made the addition of Rs.9,12,462/-. In first appeal assessee filed the detailed WS, legal position and details. The ld. CIT(A) has stated that though the AO has not made any addition

Asha Himmat Bhadra, Mumbai vs. DCIT -Circle 32(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4764/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Asha Himmat Bhadra, Dcit – Circle 32(1) 401 Beach Apartment, Kautilya Bhavan, Balraj Sahani Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Near Novotel Hotel, Vs. Bandra (East) Juhu, Mumbai, Mumbai, Mumbai Maharashtra– 400 051 Maharashtra – 400 049 Pan: Aabpb7076J (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.09.2025 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 13.03.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short “Ld. Commissioner”) Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Though In The Instant Case, Both The Parties Have Filed Adjournment Applications, However, This Court Observes That The Impugned Order Is An Ex-Parte & Therefore It Would Be Appropriate To Dismiss The Adjournment Requests & To Proceed With The Case To Decide The Same. Thus, The Adjournments Requests Are Declined & Case Is Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 68

Rs.8,21,012/- being unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. 5. The Assessee being aggrieved though challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities, except seeking adjournment on one occasion, eventually made no compliance and/or filed no documents

ACIT -7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6574/MUM/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2005-06 Assistant Commissioner Of Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Income Tax-7(1)(1), Ltd. Mumbai Mazdock House, Dockyard Vs. Road, Mazagon, Mumbai – 400010 (Pan: Aaacm8029) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Prateek Goyal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Umashankar Prasad, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50C

welfare measure. It was working on the betterment of Society at large. 6 Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Ltd. AY 2005-06 6. In the first appeal, ld. CIT(A) has elaborately dealt with the contentions raised by the assessee both, on the jurisdictional issue of change of opinion adopted

Rishabh Dev, Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 136/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 271ASection 271BSection 272A(1)(d)

thereafter approached the ld. CIT(A) and filed the appeals with delay which was not intentional. Thus, submitted that the delay in filing the first appeals may be condoned and further prayed for restoring the first appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the appeals ... make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 1386 days in filing the first appeals and remand the appeals to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh on merits in accordance with law. Needless

Rishabh Dev, Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 135/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 271ASection 271BSection 272A(1)(d)

thereafter approached the ld. CIT(A) and filed the appeals with delay which was not intentional. Thus, submitted that the delay in filing the first appeals may be condoned and further prayed for restoring the first appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the appeals ... make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 1386 days in filing the first appeals and remand the appeals to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh on merits in accordance with law. Needless

Rishabh Dev, Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 134/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 271ASection 271BSection 272A(1)(d)

thereafter approached the ld. CIT(A) and filed the appeals with delay which was not intentional. Thus, submitted that the delay in filing the first appeals may be condoned and further prayed for restoring the first appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the appeals ... make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 1386 days in filing the first appeals and remand the appeals to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh on merits in accordance with law. Needless

Rishabh Dev, Dehradun vs. ITO, W-1(2)(2), Dehradun

In the result, the appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 133/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun17 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 144Section 271ASection 271BSection 272A(1)(d)

thereafter approached the ld. CIT(A) and filed the appeals with delay which was not intentional. Thus, submitted that the delay in filing the first appeals may be condoned and further prayed for restoring the first appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the appeals ... make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 1386 days in filing the first appeals and remand the appeals to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh on merits in accordance with law. Needless

Yadav Rice Mills, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 415/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Deepali Aggarwal
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

estimated addition of Rs.4,510/- as unexplained expenditure on account of commission paid) to the returned income 6. The matter carried in first appeal has been dismissed by the Ld CIT ( A ) both on the legal issue challenging the reopening u/s 147 and also on the merits of the case