“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

Orbis Real Estate Fund I, Hyderabad (Auth. Rep.) vs. ADIT (International Taxation)-2 - 2, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 785/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sai Sourabh K, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Narender Kumar Naik

Section 143(3)Section 154

also noted from the record that the assessee has provided screenshots and e- mail logs indicating that no defect communication was received against the first appeal filed on 22.12.2023, although such communications were received for the second appeal filed in August 2024. This clearly supports the assessee’s contention that

Ag Derco Belting India Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. CIT (A), Delhi- 25, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 2104/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

Assessee has made partial complaint and submitted partial reply before the Ld. CIT(A) and based on the partial reply of the Assessee, the First Appeals of the Assessee has been dismissed. Thus, the Ld. Department's Representative relying on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), sought for dismissal

Ag Derco Belting India Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. CIT (A), Delhi- 25, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 2103/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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

Ag Derco Belting India Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. CIT (A), Delhi- 25, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 2102/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

Ag Derco Belting India Private Limited, Ghaziabad vs. CIT (A), Delhi- 25, Delhi

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed for

ITA 2101/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

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

Sumita Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3836/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalsumita Singhal Income Tax Officer, 149, Tarun Enclave, Ward-17(4), Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. Vs. New Delhi. Pan:Acops9544H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.R. Singla, Ca Department By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10.09.2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi [ ‘Cit(A)’ In Short] In Appeal No. Cit(A)-Delhi-6/10307/2017-18 Dated 14.03.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2017. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 30.01.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.5,05,360/- With Ito Ward-40(1), Delhi. Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 29.07.2016 By The Same Assessing Officer. Thereafter, Another Notice Issued U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 08.09.2016 By The Ito, Ward-71(2), New Delhi. On 04.09.2017 The Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued By Ito, Ward No.17(4), New Delhi. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) By The Ito, Ward-17(4), Wherein The Total Income Of The Assessee Was Assessed At Rs.49,65,760/- After Making Additions Of Rs.42,48,000/- By Holding The Long Term Capital Gain As Bogus & Further Addition Of Rs.2,12,400/- Was Made As Unexplained Expenditure

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

addition of Rs.2,12,400/- was made as unexplained expenditure 2 IT No.3836/Del/2019 Sumita Singhal vs. ITO for obtaining such bogus capital gain. In first appeal, the appeal of the assessee dismissed by Ld. CIT(A). 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

Jhaji Shikshan Samiti, Durg vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Exemption Circle, Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

ITA 476/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year: 2018-19 Jhaiji Shikshan Samiti, Arora Niwas, Ward No. 08, Durg Road, Bemetara, Durg-491335, Chhattisgarh Pan: Aaatj7624B ……….Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Yogesh Sethia [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Manisha Kinnu [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250

summary assessment the Ld. CPC rejected the said application for rectification on 06/01/2020. Aggrieved by the action of Ld. CPC the assessee filed first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed bringing no relief to the assessee. ITAT-Raipur Page ... Jhaiji Shikshan Samiti Vs. DCIT(E), Bhopal ITA No. 476/RPR/2025, AY 2018-19 4. Being unsuccessful in first appeal, the assessee came in present appeal before the Tribunal on as many as four grounds, which considered to be inconsonance with rule 8 of Income Tax Appellate Rules, 1963 [ITAT-Rules

Antar Singh Mewada, Bhopal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)

Appeal of the assessed is allowed for statistical

ITA 416/IND/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiantar Singh Mewada, Cit(A), बनाम/ 1, Barkhera Salam 1, Nfac, Vs. Barkhera Salam, Delhi Po Bhouri, Techsil Hujur Dist. Bhopal (Pan:Bompm3467E) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Assessee By Shri Gagan Tiwari, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Dr Date Of Hearing 01.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

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 on the grounds ... account was attached by the Department of Income Tax since the year 2018. Every time the assessee was informed by said counsel that his first appeal is subjudice one and that it would be disposed off in due course. Thereafter Covid-19 broke out and the assessee could not visit

Vineet Bajoria, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 45(4), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 231/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: S/Shri & Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyita Nos.228, 229, 230 & 231/Kol/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vineet Bajoria, C/O. S.N.Ghosh Vs. Ito, Ward 45(4), Kolkata & Associates, Advocates, 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor, Suite No.203, Off Hare Street, Kolkata Pan/Gir No. Adupb 1299 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Adv Revenue By : Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR

Section 24Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

explained the source of cash deposit and hence added the same to the income of the assessee. The addition was confirmed in the first appeal. 16. After hearing the rival submissions, we find that the assessee has filed the return of income on presumptive basis u/s.44AD

Vineet Bajoria, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 45(4), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 230/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR

Section 24Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

Vineet Bajoria, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 45(4), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 229/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR

Section 24Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

Vineet Bajoria, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 45(4), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 228/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.B.Chakraborthy, Sr DR

Section 24Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

Shri Umakant Agrawal, Mumbai vs. Dy. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Tax Central Circle 25(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4524/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya,CAFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. DR)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are hereby initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particular of income.” 5. In first appeal, the learned CIT(A) affirmed the addition primarily on the footing that (i) the assessee did not produce the creditor for examination despite opportunity

Calories Count, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 43/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Sh. Y. K. Sud, C.A

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 44A

Rules’62, against which remand report was obtained and opportunity of rejoinder provided to the assessee without any satisfactory response. 15. In first appeal proceedings the assessee submitted his version of the calculation as reflected in his audited books of accounts and argued that all factual aspects of the business

Ramdev Choudhary, Ajmer vs. ITO, WD-2(2), Ajmer

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

ITA 895/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhlesh Katariya, CA (Thru:VC)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 132(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

voluntarily filing return of income for A.Y 2013-14. Therefore, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income.’’ 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has also passed an ex-parte order as the assessee did not submit any documentary evidence /information to prove his side ... r.w.s. 144 of the Act made addition amounting to Rs.34,76,511/- as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. In first appeal, the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee neither pursued the appeal before him nor adduced any documents

Nine Export LLP, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as

ITA 718/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. Twinkle Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

failure. Therefore, a penalty of Rs.30,000/- u/s 272(A)(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby imposed." In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO. The submission of the ld. AR of the assessee is that the assessee had not received

Vipin Pansari, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 683/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CA (Thru:VC)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

total income of the assessee is taken at Rs. 7,45,623/- including return income of his wife at Rs. 3,91,159/- In first appeal, the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee neither pursued the appeal before him nor adduced any documents

Kalyan Ratan Vijay, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Jaipur

ITA 571/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Gupta, CA andFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary,JCIT- DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 292BSection 69

taxable income of Rs.2,28,130/- after making addition of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in Bank account. 2.2 In first appeal, ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- "3. The appellant submitted reply in response to this office notice

Bhagvan Sahay Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 524/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: ShriKapil Banthia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)

penalty proceedings u/s 271F are initiated separately and notices are issued accordingly.’’ 8 SHRI BHAGWAN SAHAY MEENA VS ITO, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee failed to furnish any reply/ documentary evidence in respect

Jhutha Ram Meena, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 523/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gogra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 69

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) for non-compliance to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act shall also be initiated separately.’’ In first appeal, theld.CIT(A) has also pased an ex-parte order confirming the action of the AO as the appellant has also not been able