← 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

Shri Bhuj Lohana Mahila Vikas, Bhuj vs. CIT (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 262/RJT/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 262/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: Na Hybrid Hearing बनाम Shri Bhuj Lohana Mahila Vikas Cit (Exemption) Vs. 16, C/O Harjivan Velji Popat Ghanshyam Room No. 609, Floor-6, Aaykar Nagar, Bhawan (Vejapur), Near Sachin Bhuj – 370001 (Gujarat) Tower, 100 Foot Road, Anandnagar – Prahladnagar Road Ahmedabad-380015 "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan No. : Aafas4626N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri R.B. Shah, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit (Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per, Dr. A. L. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

illegal. 4. The Appellant craves to leave to add, alter, amend and withdraw any or more grounds of appeal any time before finalizing the first Appeal.” 3. The appeal filed by the assessee, before this Tribunal, is barred by limitation by 632 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting

Shri Ekta Education Trust, Keshod vs. The ITO Exemption, Ward (2), Rajkot.

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

ITA 177/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 177/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2022-23) Shri Ekta Education Trust बनाम Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Professional Academy Primary Ward-2, Rajkot, New Aayakar /Vs. School, Gokuldham Mangrole Road, Bhawan, Race Course Ring Keshod-362 220 Road, Rajkot-360 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aafts 1570 G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D.M.Rindani, A.R. & Ms. Devina Patel, Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23, Is Directed Against The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)/Addl/Jcit(A)-1, (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”, Dated 12.02.2025, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Centralized Processing Centre/Assessing Officer U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. The Learned Addl/Jcit(A)-1, Visakhapatanam, Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Cpc, Bangalore By Failing To Appreciate That The Actin Of Cpc, Bangalore In Making Adjustments To The Returned Income Of The Appellant By Way Of Intimation U/S 143(1) Of The Act & In Denying The Benefit Of Sec.11 Of The Appellant Was Not A Case Of Permissible Prima Facie Adjustment.

For Appellant: Shri D.M.Rindani, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

learned ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam, erred in not considering audit report in Form 10B filed by the appellant before filing of first appeal. 6. The learned ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Visakhapatnam, erred in confirming the action of the CPC, Bangalore, by failing to appreciate that only net income is taxable under