“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

Harpreet Kaur, Bhopal vs. Income-Tax Officer, 5(2), Bhopal

ITA 730/IND/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 54Section 69A

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 22.08.2025 आदेश/ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 31.07.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT(A), Thane ["CIT(A)"] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... Rs.13,21,000 (-) Rs.4,60,000] as unexplained money u/s 69A. With these adjustments, the AO completed assessment. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. At first, we deem

Shri Sainath Sevabhavi Sanstha, Latur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Nanded

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

ITA 1319/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1319/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Sainath Sevabhavi Vs. Ito, Exemption Ward, Sanstha, Nanded. Akharwai, Harangul Bk, Latur, Harangai Bk, B.O., Latur- 413531. Pan : Aakts9324H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sarang Gudhate Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.04.2025 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-7, Delhi [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “(Without Prejudice To Each Other) 1. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Has Erred In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing Of Appeal. 2. Under The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld Cit(A)/Nfac Has Erred In Denying The Expenditure Incurred & Treating The Gross Receipts As Income In Intimation U/S 143(1).

For Appellant: Shri Sarang GudhateFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 119(2)(b)Section 143(1)Section 154

before PCIT, Nashik, who vide order dated 05.01.2022 rejected the application u/s 119(2)(b) of the IT Act. Therefore, the assessee belatedly furnished first appeal against the intimation u/s 143(1) order dated 14.03.2015 before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) without condoning the delay of 2489 days dismissed ... income in correct form, and when the application u/s 119(2)(b) of the IT Act was rejected then the assessee chose to file first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which resulted in a delay of 2489 days. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set-aside the order

Durgapur Steel City Society for Education, Bardhaman vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Exemption, Durgapur

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 255/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 12ASection 250

having registration u/s 12A which the appellant received in April, 2024. The copy of registration is annexed herewith. Appellant sociey thereafter filed the first appeal within the time limit on dt. 16/02/2018. Meanwhile appellant society was advised by it's previous consultant to settle the disputed tax through the DTVS ... amended u/s 12A(2) with retrospective effect from AY 2015-16 which is the issue in present appeal for the reason of it's first appeal was pending before the NFAC on the date of granting registration (dt. 04-04-2022) as the purported first appeal was instituted

Chhaya Masurkar, Balaghat vs. National Faceless Assessment Center Jurisdiction Officer- ITO, Balaghat, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 27/JAB/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshrachhaya Masurkar V. National Faceless 1 Ward No.9 Ram Mandir Road, Assessment Centre Katangi, Madhya Pradesh- Jurisdiction Officer-Ito, 481445. Balaghat Delhi. Tan/Pan:Cakpm8662A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Cit(Dr) O R D E R (1). The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 13.02.2024 Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter Referred As To “Cit(A)”)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Of The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Bagrecha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. CIT(DR)

Section 144Section 147Section 148

disclosed correctly in from 35 and therefore could not be filed correctly in appeal at Ld. CIT-A in time hence condonation in filling first appeal may kindly be condoned. 2. On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law CIT (A) should have held that

The Straw Board Manufacturing Company Limited, Bajwara, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Hoshiarpur

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 318/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 318/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) The Straw Board Manufacturing Ito Company Ltd Ward 1 बनाम/ Vs. C/O Lala Shri Chunilal Free Hospital Hoshiarpur. Bajwara, Hoshiarpur – 146 023 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-5095-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Sandeep Vijh (Ca) –Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Charan Dass (Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Addl. / Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata [Cit(A)] Dated 26-03-2024 In The Matter Of An Intimation Issued By Cpc U/S. 143(1) Of The Act On 22-11-2022 Proposing Certain Adjustment Of Rs.6.58 Lacs To The Returned Income Of The Assessee. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed Adjustment Of Rs.5.94 Lacs Against Which The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. Having

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Vijh (CA) –Ld.ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 43B

income as computed by the assessee was accepted by CPC without making these adjustments. 3. Apprehending any possible rectification u/s 154, the assessee preferred first appeal against the same. It was pointed out that the figure of Rs.10,35,757/- comprised-off profit on sale of car for Rs.1 ... well as accepted under the head capital gains and no adjustment as confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is warranted on these facts. The first appeal was filed by the assessee only on apprehension of possible rectification u/s 154. This being so, the adjustment so sustained in the impugned order, stand

D P School Society, Nagaland vs. Assessing Officer, Jurisdiction Ward Two(Three)

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 136/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: The First Appellate Authority. Before The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A), The Assessee Gave The Reasons For Said Delay As Under:

Section 11Section 12ASection 249(3)Section 250

certain unavoidable circumstances which were beyond hid control, the assessee was prevented from filing an appeal within due course of time” 1.1 At first appeal stage, the following finding has been given: “In the instant case, despite multiple opportunities and the benefit of a significantly extended deadline, the appellant failed ... query from the Bench regarding the finding given on page 4 (1st paragraph) of the impugned order that an opportunity given at first appeal stage was not availed of to explain the delay substantially and appropriately keeping in view the provision of section

Mohammed Asad, Ratlam vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Guwahati

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 118/GTY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati21 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: The Ld. Ao. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Held That The Explanation Submitted Did Not Discharge The Burden Of Proof For The Purposes Of Section 69A Of The Act.

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144CSection 148Section 250Section 69A

from bank accounts and left-over I.T.A. No. 118/GTY/2025 Mohammed Asad foreign currency, was not found acceptable. The assessee repeated the same arguments at first appeal stage as were presented before the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that the explanation submitted did not discharge the burden

Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No. 192/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2011-12 Shri Ramchand Laxmandas Babani P.No.2, Shiv Shankar Colony Janta Colony, Jaipur – 302 004 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward -6(4) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANYPB 6571 A अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे/Assesseeby : Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru" V.C.) राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gautam Sin

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Balani, Advocate (Thru” V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 271(1)(c)

basis that the assessee had concealed the income while filing the return of income and ultimately levied penalty amounting to Rs.2.60 lacs. In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO. In appeal before us, the assessee submitted that the penalty

Jewels Emporium A Legacy, Jaipur vs. ACIT, CC-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1215/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT,Sr.-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

tune of Rs. 18,53,295/- was made being 25% of such alleged unverifiable purchases (copy of Assessment order at APB 60-73). In first appeal the same was restricted to Rs. 2,00,000/- as against the addition of Rs. 18,53,295/- made by the ld. AO (copy

Laggisetty Manohar Karthik, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 15(2), Chennai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 746/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 746/Chny/2025 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147Section 54Section 80C

case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, reported in 259 ITR 19. Insofar as the merits in the said first appeal was concerned, the assessee submitted that the sale consideration was assessable to tax in the hands of the HUF, thereby establishing there being no escapement ... reasons more fully captured at page 16 to 17 of the said appellate order and had adjudicated the issues on merits in the said first appeal by confirming the action of the AO in assessing such capital gains as income of the assessee for the reasons more fully captured

Madhuri Sunil Zode, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted

ITA 419/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Madhuri Sunil Zode, Ito, Ward 20(2)(1), Flat No. 8, 8Th Floor, Singers Wood, Piramal Chamber, 27Th Road, Bandra West, Vs. Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400050. Pan No. Aaapz 1530 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay filed in the High Court would stand rejected and the Miscellaneous First Appeal shall stand dismissed as barred by time. No costs.” 4.1 Tested on these touchstones, the explanation offered by the assessee, that he relied upon

Raja Ram Rajendra Bhandari &Party, Jaipur vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessees above are dismissed with above directions

ITA 604/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalbirbal Ram Rajendra Poonia & Party, Party A-51, Hanuman Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur 302 012 Pan No. Aaaab 3118M ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. G. M. Mehta, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajendra Ojha, CIT &

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250

under section 143(3) of IT Act by the AO. The income so assessed was reduced to Rs. 3,38,98,000/- in first appeal after considering the trading results of subsequent year (A.Y. 2001-02) and at loss of Rs. 2,34,88,920/- in second appeal

Birbal Ram Rajendra Poonia &Party, C/O G. Mehta and Co vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessees above are dismissed with above directions

ITA 598/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2025

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalbirbal Ram Rajendra Poonia & Party, Party A-51, Hanuman Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur 302 012 Pan No. Aaaab 3118M ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Mr. G. M. Mehta, CA, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Rajendra Ojha, CIT &

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250

Umesh Saboo, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 1271/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

taxed at 30% as per provision of section 1158BE of I.T. Act. 4. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, assessee preferred first appeal before the Id. CIT(A). The Id. CIT(A) after hearing the contention of the assessee has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by giving

Umesh Saboo, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeal filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 1270/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 127Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A

The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara vs. Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara

Appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 529/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

respect to soil filling expenses of Rs.78,82,000/-, the Assessing Officer made a separate disallowance treating the same as capital in nature. In first appeal, the learned CIT(A) restricted this disallowance to Rs.7,88,200/- on the ground of lack of supporting documentation, against which the Revenue

Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

Appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 478/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

soil filling expenses of Rs. 78,82,000/-, the Assessing Officer made a separate disallowance treating the same as capital in nature. In first appeal, the learned CIT(A) restricted this disallowance to Rs. 7,88,200/- on the ground of lack of supporting documentation, against which the Revenue

Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

ITA 477/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

Co-Operative Electric Supply Society Ltd., Karimnagar vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Karimnagar

ITA 478/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)

fact that the Appeal on the same ground for the subsequent assessment year ie., 2016-17 by the appellant was allowed in the first appeal itself and consequential effect duly given by the Department 6. The Appellant also brings to the kind attention of the Hon'ble members

Co-Operative Electric Supply Society Ltd., Siricilla vs. DCIT., Circle-1, Karimnagar

ITA 411/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)