“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

Dilip Singh, Jhunjhunu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jhunjhunu, Jhunjhunu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Ms. Swatika Jha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69A

amount is being treated as business income of the assessee and added to the income of the assessee. [Addition: Rs. 5,32,400/-] In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee restricting addition of Rs.3.50,000/- u/s 69A as made

Anguri Devi Khandelwal (Radha Mohan Khandelwal (Legal Heir), Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 390/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 390/JPR/2025 निधर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2018-19 Smt.Anguri Devi Khandelwal Shri Radha Mohan Khandelwal (Legal Heir) 674, Khandaka Mansion, Bordi Ka Rasta Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur – 302 001 बनाम Vs. The DCIT Circle-4 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIHPK 4203 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA राजस्व की ओरसे

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 272A(1)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 273B

hereby levied as penalty under section 274 r.w.s. 272A(1)(d) of the I.T. Act. Demand notice u/s 156 is attached.’’ In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO. In this case, it is noticed that the assessee Smt. Anguri Devi Khandelwal, passed away

Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana vs. Sanjeev Malhotra, Ludhiana

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 411/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 411/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ito Sh. Sanjeev Malhotra बनाम/ Room No 228 First Floor, 298-A Pannu Farm House, Pakhowal Road Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar Backside Hotel Keys, Kiran Vihar Vs. Ludhiana.141012 Ludhiana 141012 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Achpm-4381-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-09-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 29-01-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 27-03-2022. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Addition Of Unexplained Money For Rs.237.23 Lacs For Want Of Any Effective

For Appellant: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

Rs.237.23 Lacs for want of any effective defense 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

Channan Singh, Sangrur vs. Jao Income Tax Officer, Ward Sunam, Punjab

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 740/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.740/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Channan Singh Ito Ward Sunam बनाम/ 125, Ward No 7, Koko Majri, Sunam Mata Modi Road, Preet Nagar Vs. Sangrur-148028 Sunam, Sangrur. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Cxups-2467-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) -Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 24-03-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act On 30-12-2018. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) -Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144

evidences as forthcoming from the assessee. The declared agricultural income of Rs.3.50 Lacs was assessed as ‘Nil’ for the same very reason. 3. During first appeal, the assessee’s additional evidences were subjected to remand proceedings wherein Ld. AO opposed admission of additional evidences and reiterated the assessment so framed

Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana vs. Sanchit Malhotra, Ludhiana

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 365/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 365/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Ito-Ward No.3(1) Sh. Sanchit Malhotra बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan H. No 1306, Sardar Nagar Vs. Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana.141001. Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bjgpm-8369-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Tarundeep Kaur (Cit) (Virtual) – Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04-09-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 13-01-2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 07-03-2024. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Assessed Income Of Rs.834.42 Lacs As Against Returned Income Of Rs.16.95 Lacs. The Assessee Failed To Make Any Effective Representation During

For Appellant: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur (CIT) (Virtual) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 144Section 251(1)(a)

assessee failed to make any effective representation during assessment proceedings. 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

ITO, Patiala vs. Sh. Kamalpreet Singh, Patiala

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 225/CHANDI/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.224/Chandi/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Circle Patiala Shri Balwinder Singh Patiala. Prop. M/S M.P. Traders बनाम/ Vs. (Represented By L/R Shri Simranpal Singh) # 986/3 Dhobi Ghat, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acrps-5840-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Co. No.13/Chandi/2015 [In Ita No.224/Chandi/2015] (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Balwinder Singh Acit-Ward-1 बनाम/ Prop. M/S M.P. Traders Patiala. (Represented By L/R Shri Simranpal Singh) Vs. # 986/3 Dhobi Ghat, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acrps-5840-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.225/Chandi/2015 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-Circle Patiala Shri Kamalpreet Singh बनाम/ Vs. Patiala. Prop. M/S Saran Enterprises 4, Dlf Shopping Complex, Patiala. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acbps-1831-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 120(1)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

However, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.2.23 Lacs u/s 40(a)(ia) for alleged violation of TDS provisions u/s 194C. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal against the assessment order. Appellate Proceedings 3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the legal grounds of the assessee challenging jurisdiction

ITO, Patiala vs. Sh. Balwinder Singh, Patiala

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 224/CHANDI/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 120(1)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Sh. Kamalpreet Singh, Patiala vs. ACIT, Patiala

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 185/CHANDI/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 120(1)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

Devaraya Pillai Subramanian, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 561/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 561/Chny/2025 धनिाजरण वर्ज / Assessment Year:2017-18 Devaraya Pillai Subramanian, Ito 58A, Sathyamoorthy Street, Vs. Ward – 1(1), Salem – 636 001. Salem. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Aijps-3267-J] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथीकीओरसे/Appellant By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, Jcit

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Sita Krishnamoorthy, JCIT

Section 56(2)(viii)

aggrieved by the said assessment, had challenged the same in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the assessee during the course of first appeal had submitted that the compensation received, including interest on enhanced compensation, could not be brought to tax under the provisions

Laqshya Media Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

ITA 3004/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Media Ltd. 4. The assessment, however, was completed under section 143(3) on 03/03/2021 without any discussion or finding on this claim. In the first appeal, though the assessee specifically raised this issue in Ground No. 7, the learned CIT(A) did not adjudicate the same. 5. Before

The Karnataka Multipurpose Souharda Sahakari Niyamit, Chikodi vs. E Assessment, Nipnai

ITA 122/PAN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji03 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 122/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Karnataka Multipurpose Souharda Sahakari Niyamit. Bhagyalaxmi Nagar, Chikodi, Belgavi-591201. Pan : Aaaat4824A . . . . . . . Appellant V/S National Faceless E-Asstt Centre, Delhi . . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Chetan Chougule [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/09/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Apl/S/250/2023-24/1057730634(1) Dt. 06/11/2023 Passed By Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Coimbatore, [‘Ld. Nfac’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Rectification Order Dt. 28/05/2021 Passed U/S 154 Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru [‘Ld. Cpc’] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Mr Chetan Chougule [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 249Section 250Section 253(3)

Without touching merits of the case we have heard the rival party’s submission on limited issue of ex-parte dismissal of first appeal by the Ld. NFAC and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 perused material placed on record. We note that, the return of income filed ... against the prima-facie adjustment made in summary assessment was rejected by Ld. CPC on 28/05/2021. Against such order of rectification the appellant filed first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. NFAC on 29/08/2021. The Ld. NFAC however dismissed the said appeal in limine on the ground

Balamourougan, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

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

ITA 1814/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1814/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2011-12 Balamourougan, Income Tax Officer, No.14, 2Nd Cross, Navasakthi Nagar, Ward-3, Puducherry-605 009. Puducherry. [Pan: Agrpb3165E] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.Hitesh, Advocate For Mr.D.Anand, Advocate. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Veeramany K, Irs सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.Hitesh, Advocate for Mr.D.AnandFor Respondent: Shri Veeramany K, IRS

Section 144Section 147

appeal was dismissed for being filed late without any justified grounds. It was pleaded that the assessee had committed delay in filing of first appeal and for which it had justified grounds. The assessee pleaded that it was not aware of the ex-parte assessment order of the Page

Satya Pratap Singh Kunwar, Uttar Pradesh vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 2(3), Faridabad, Haryana

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

ITA 984/DEL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)

were carried out the CPC-Bangluru and intimation was issued enhancing the assessed income in the captioned assessment years. The CIT(A) in the first appeal has sustained the adjustments towards belated deposits of employees’ contribution to PF/ESIC in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme

Shri Kalmeshwar Co-Op Credit Society, Belgaum vs. Assessing Officer, National E Limited Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 164/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji02 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 164/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri Kalmeshwar Co-Op Credit Society Limited. 396/4 Main Road, Lbs Nagar, Kangralli, Belagavi-590010. Pan : Aaajs2317N . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Santosh Kumar Latthe [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 250Section 253(1)Section 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

interest income earned by the assessee on its term deposits held with Certain Co-operative Banks. Aggrieved by the disallowance matter travelled up in first appeal, wherein the Ld. NFAC dismissed the appeal by confirming the denial in line with the notings of the Ld. AO. While confirming the said

M/S Kanak Vrindavan Resorts Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 543/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 37

with Vouchers 36-57 b) Copy of the Vehicle Expenses Ledgers along with Bills/Vouchers Copy of Written Submission submitted before Ld. CIT(A) during First Appeal 4. 58-64 proceedings 5. Copy of additional written submission filed on 28.12.2024 along with - 65-66 67 a) Copy of chart showing list

Income Tax Officer, Ludhiana vs. Shubham Yarns Private Limited, Ludhiana

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 323/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)(Virtual Mode) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA)- Ld. AR

Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

legal grounds. 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

Pawan Gupta, Parwanoo, Himachal Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo, Himachal Pradesh

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 912/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

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

Section 147

affording any opportunity of hearing to the assessee. If the date of communication of assessment order is taken to be 03-11-2022, the first appeal would be in time. Considering the same, we direct Ld. CIT(A) to admit the appeal and adjudicate the same on merits with

Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 887/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Pahalampur Samabay Krishi Ito, Ward-23(1), Hooghly Unnayan Ltd.

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

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 148Section 153ASection 80Section 80P

filed after due date. The assessee sought rectification thereof under Section 154 of the Act which was reported. The CIT(A) in the first appeal also refused to entertain rectification of mistake towards aforesaid deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Act. Hence, in this appeal. 6. We find that

M/S. Gyanchand Poddar HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1391/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

addition of Rs. 8,11,490/- made by disallowing the Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) claimed by the assessee was not contested in first appeal. However, the Ld. AO has levied the penalty on the reasoning that the LTCG was bogus and hence penalty was clearly leviable. 1.1 The assessee

Govind Jee, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward -1(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1040/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia,CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 69A

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and total income assessed was taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act, at the rate of 60%. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on account of delay in filing the appeal before him. 2.4.1 The Bench has taken into consideration