“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

Mahesh Chandra Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed of, for statistical purposes

ITA 555/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA (Thru: VC)For Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh,JCIT-DR

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 292CSection 69

year under consideration. Assessee filed reply before the AO but it was not found tenable and the AO made addition of Rs.10.00 lacs. In first appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. 2.5.1 Taking into consideration the issue involved in view of pleas of the assessee

Mahesh Chandra Agrawal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed of, for statistical purposes

ITA 554/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA (Thru: VC)For Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh,JCIT-DR

Section 131Section 139(1)Section 144Section 153ASection 292CSection 69

J.K.V. Stonex, Kishangarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Kishangarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 542/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: ShriSandeep Jhanwar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 68

received via banking channel. The ld. AO has not pointed out any discrepancy in account confirmation and bank statement. 2. During the course of first appeal proceeding, the assessee submitted the same documents, i.e. confirmation and return of income of all the lenders and the ld. CIT(A) has deleted

Surinder Kaur Through Legal Heir Sh. Ajay Partap, Dhalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Kullu

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 500/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151A

paper-book. The Ld. AO assessed income of Rs.203.40 Lacs which was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. The first appeal was filed by legal representative (LR) of the assessee since the assessee left for heavenly abode on 18-06-2017. No representation was made

Ramasamy Kalidasan, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1982/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1982/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Ramasamy Kalidasan, The Income Tax Officer, 1/85, Kumaripalayam, Vs. Ward 1(3), Mohanur, Salem. Namakkal – 637 015. Pan: Buipk 6746A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T.S.Lakshmi Venkataraman, F.C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri T.S.Lakshmi VenkataramanFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam,JCIT

Section 144Section 250

factors, I am 57 years old and I am not sufficiently competent to effectively follow digital communications. 7. It is also submitted that the first appeal has been filed within the prescribed time limit which demonstrates that I am not a willful defaulter in tiling the appeal. To support

Vishal Gyanchand Madhani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4925/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Raskar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

explanation and document in respect of its claim. 7. The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged the said assessment order and/or addition by filing first appeal before the 4 ITA No.4892/M/2025 & Ors. Mrs. Vimla Gyanchand Madhani & Ors. Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording four opportunities eventually made no compliance and/or filed

Jasbindar Singh Dhanjal, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -28(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4901/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Thakurdesai, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Parwani, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

from the Department, which resulted into passing the assessment order as ex-parte and making various additions. Against the assessment order, the Assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner with the help of one CA firm M/s. Aurora & Associates. Notices received from the Ld. Commissioner forwarded

Varun Narendra Madhani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4895/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Raskar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

Vimla Gyanchand Madhani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4892/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Raskar, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

Purnima Narendra Madhani, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

ITA 4891/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

explanation and document in respect of its claim. 7. The Assessee, being aggrieved, though challenged the said assessment order and/or addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording four opportunities eventually made no compliance and/or filed no submission/documents. Therefore, the Ld. Commissioner in the constrained

Vaks Multiple Service Private Limited, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3255/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Vaks Multiple Service Vs Acit Plot No. 58-59, D L F Main Cgo Complex, Nh 4, Market, Sector-11, Faridabad, Nit, Faridabad, Haryana Haryana Pan: Aaecv4819M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Ankit Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac’ For Short), New Delhi Dated 17/03/2025 For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2019-20 Having Gross Total Income Of Rs. 79,44,337/-. During The Processing Of Itr U/S. 143(1)(A), The Cpc Had Disallowed Rs. 33,02,357/- On Account Of Delay In Payment Of Employees Share Of Esi & Pf. Being Aggrieved With The Aforesaid Disallowance Of Rs. 33,02,357/-, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac). The Cit (Nfac) Vide Order Vaks Multiple Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(va)

rectifying the order of the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has Vaks Multiple Service Pvt. ltd. Vs. ACIT decided the first appeal filed by the Assessee on 24/06/2022 based on the law/judicial precedent prevailing as on the date, therefore, the same cannot be construed as error apparent

Tridev Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 427/RPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Mr Subash Agarwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 10A(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 251Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 40A(3)

larger interest of judice deem it fit to condone the same and proceed to adjudicate the limited issue of ex-parte dismissal of first appeal by the Ld. CIT(A), recording the same, we advanced accordingly. ITAT-Raipur Page 2 of 8 Tridev Ispat Private Limited vs. DCIT ... fairness and in the larger interest of justice necessary to accord one more opportunity to the appellant assessee to comply with notices and contest first appeals on merits before the Ld. CIT(A), which can only be possible on remand of these cases. In view of this, without offering

Tridev Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle (2), Raipur

Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 426/RPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Mr Subash Agarwal [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 10A(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 251Section 270ASection 271ASection 274Section 40A(3)

Murli Dhar Upadhyay, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, stands allowed

ITA 252/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270A(1)Section 40A(3)

first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO. The assessee is an individual and is engaged in transporting milk from M/s. Jaipur ZilaDugdhUtpadakSahakariSangh Ltd (Saras ) to various Saras Dairy booths on commission basis i.e. @ Rs.49.90 per litre. The work of the assessee included in taking

Orbit Aviation Private Limited, Chandigarh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir-1(1), Chandigarh

The appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 341/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.341/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Orbit Aviation Private Limited Dcit-Circle-1(1) बनाम/ 1St Floor Metro Plaza, Sco 54-55 Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Sector 9-D, Chandigarh Cr Building, Chandigarh. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaaco-9386-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Aditya Kumar (Ca) A/W Shri Ashwani Kumar (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-09-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-01-2025 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S 143(1) On 07-08-2023 Making Disallowance U/S 43B For Rs.1,07,54,593/- On Account Of Gst Payable At Year-End But Remaining Unpaid By Due Date Of Furnishing Of Return Of Income U/S 139(1). Having

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Kumar (CA) a/w Shri Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 145Section 43BSection 44A

Audit Report, Tax Auditor reported impugned disallowance u/s 43B. Accordingly, CPC made disallowance as reported by Tax Auditor. During first appeal, the assessee contended that GST amount of Rs.81,31,423/- was paid on 03-11-2022 which was after the date of Tax Audit Report but before due date

Mr. Suresh Shantilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 16(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 4752/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Jotwani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Bhagat, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 43CSection 48Section 50CSection 50C(1)Section 56(2)(x)

during the assessment proceedings. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition and/or assessment order of the AO, by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner u/s 250 of the Act and has claimed that the difference between the value of Rs.95,24,711/- as determined

Mrs. Pranita P. Thakur, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward4(3), Mumbai

In the result, ITA No.4704/M/2023 is partly allowed and ITA

ITA 4705/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Shreyash Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

being unexplained cash credit is made. 5. Though the Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, the Assessee eventually made no effective compliance and therefore in the absence of relevant submissions/documents and constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal

Mrs. Pranita P Thakur, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward4(3), Thane

In the result, ITA No.4704/M/2023 is partly allowed and ITA

ITA 4704/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Shreyash Shah, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

Deepa Education Society, Amravati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Amravati

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 80/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 10Section 12ASection 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

treating it as an AOP.” 5. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the decision of the AO vide assessment order by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner justified the action of the AO in denying the claim for exemption and consequently upheld

Bhivraj Mohanlal Jain, Akola vs. ITO Ward-2, Akola

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 351/NAG/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Tawari, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Anand Nagrale, Ld. Sr. D.R

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 69

added to the total income of the Assessee.” 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, of no avail, as the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by upholding the findings of the AO in making the aforesaid