← 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 Adil Khurshid Bhat, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Udhampur

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 579/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Sh. Mohd. Iqbal Untoo, C.A
Section 147Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(b)Section 271FSection 44A

because notice was not issued in the email as stated in form –35. He submitted that the delay of seventeen days in filing the first appeal was because of his counsel who was fully occupied with religious rituals during ramjan and eid. 7. He further submitted that all documentary evidences

Eeh Eff Brothers, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Srinagar

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 441/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 441/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessmentyear: 2017-18) M/S Eeh Eff Brothers Ito बनाम/ Vs. Sarai Payeen Amirakadal Ward-1 Srinagar (J&K) Srinagar. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aagfe-1269-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone (Ca) –Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 07-06- 2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 26-12-2019. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee-Firm Is Estimation Of Business Income. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-

For Appellant: Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone (CA) –Ld.ARFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

rejected the books u/s 145(3) and estimated income of 8% on gross receipts of Rs.258.94 Lacs which came to Rs.20.71 Lacs. 3. During first appeal, the assessee stated that the deposits were out of business receipts. The assessee also assailed estimation of 8% on the ground that it earned

M/S. Rpk Bricks Manufacturers, Ferozepur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ferozepur

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 207/ASR/2008[1982-83]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 1982-83

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 207/Asr/2008 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 1982-83) M/S Rpk Bricks Manufactures Ito बनाम/ Vs. 113, Church Road Ward Iii(2) Ferozepur Cantt. Ferozepur. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. 183-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Mrs. Sangeeta Garg (Ca) & Ms. Monika (Cas) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 1. 1982-83 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda [Cit(A)] Dated 03-01-2008 Confirming Penalty Of Rs.96,010/- As Levied By Ld. Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Vide Order Dated 09-03-2007. Having Heard Rival Submissions, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Mrs. Sangeeta Garg (CA) & Ms. MonikaFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

years, the records were not available as confirmed by the concerned department in its reply dated 24-11-2005. During first appeal, the assessee filed certificate dated 28-05-2006 from concerned department certifying that no bricks were pending against payment made to the assessee in FY 1981-82. Another

Navanirman Multipurpose Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Belagavi

ITA 116/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 116/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Navanirman Multipurpose Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Laxmi Nagar, Hindalaga, Dist. Belagavi.-591108 Pan : Aacan0420G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Belagavi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; By Captioned Appeal The Assessee Impugns Din & Order 1074658686(1) Dt. 18/03/2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 15/02/2024 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act By National Faceless E- Asstt Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2016-17 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80A(5)Section 80P(2)

Credit Society Ltd. Vs ITO ITA Nos.116/PAN/2025 AY: 2016-17 3. Aggrieved by denial of deduction the assessee unsuccessfully contested the dispute in first appeal before the Ld. NFAC/CIT(A). Dissatisfied by the actions of tax authorities below the assessee instituted the present appeal with substantive grounds which collectively

Rajnish Bohra, Neemuch vs. Income-Tax Officer Neemuch, Neemuch

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

ITA 518/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshirajnish Bohra, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 22 Hudco Colony, Neemuch Vs. Neemuch (Pan: Ajmpb3406C) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025/05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253

real terms out of any self earned proceeds of the assessee. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds

Saquib Ahmed, Pipariya vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 402/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263

this consequential order total five notice(s) were issued wherein the assessee participated. Since the assessee was aggrieved he has even preferred first appeal before Page 8 of 32 Saquib Ahmed ITA No. 402/Ind/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 CIT(A) and that same is pending for hearing and final disposal

Mohd Saeed, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 5(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 917/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Id. CIT(A). The narration so made by the Id. CIT(A) as to dismissal of appeal is reproduced as under:-

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 154

हेतु आवेदन CPC Banglore को "कया था िजसे CPC order No. CPC/1718/A1/1814198399 के "वारा आयकर "नर"त (reject) कर "दया गया था।‘’ 3.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-condonation of delay in late filing the appeal

Anil Kumar, Panchkula vs. ITO, Ward-1, Panhkula

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 465/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar for Shri Ravinder K.SharmaFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144

adjudication of appeal on merits. 2. Considering the factual matrix and upon perusal of case records, we condone the delay in first appeal and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits with a direction to the assessee to plead

Income Tax Officer, Ayakar Bhawan vs. K P Exim, Main Bahadur Ke Road, Ludhiana

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 287/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 286/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 287/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer K P Exim Inc बनाम/ Vs. Rishi Nagar Main Bahadur Ke Road Ludhiana.141001. Ludhiana – 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakfk-2926-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) A/W Shri Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Y.K. Saxena ( Advocate) – Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue Have Identical Facts. In Ay 2014-15, Ld. Ao Has Framed An Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 26- 03-2022 Making Addition Of Rs.360.17 Lacs. The Assessee Failed To Make Any Representation During Assessment Proceedings. Considering This Fact, Ld. Cit(A) Exercised Remand Power In Terms Of Proviso To Sec.251(1)(A) & Directed Ld. Ao To Make Fresh Assessment. Similar

For Appellant: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Y.K. Saxena ( Advocate) – Ld. AR
Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

considered opinion that the assessment was framed on best judgment basis for both the years. 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 assessments. In our opinion, on the facts

Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan vs. K P Exim Inc, Main Bahadur Ke Road

The appeals stands dismissed

ITA 286/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 286/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 287/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Income Tax Officer K P Exim Inc बनाम/ Vs. Rishi Nagar Main Bahadur Ke Road Ludhiana.141001. Ludhiana – 141 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aakfk-2926-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) A/W Shri Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Drs ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Y.K. Saxena ( Advocate) – Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue Have Identical Facts. In Ay 2014-15, Ld. Ao Has Framed An Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act On 26- 03-2022 Making Addition Of Rs.360.17 Lacs. The Assessee Failed To Make Any Representation During Assessment Proceedings. Considering This Fact, Ld. Cit(A) Exercised Remand Power In Terms Of Proviso To Sec.251(1)(A) & Directed Ld. Ao To Make Fresh Assessment. Similar

For Appellant: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Y.K. Saxena ( Advocate) – Ld. AR
Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

considered opinion that the assessment was framed on best judgment basis for both the years. 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 assessments. In our opinion, on the facts

Reena, Patiala vs. ITO Ward 1 Patiala, Patiala

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 272/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: us.3. The Ld. AR has placed on record cash flow of the assessee as under: - | No. | Nature of Source of Cash | Amount Received | |:----|:--------------------------------------------|:----------------| | 1. | Cash received on sale of properties during FY 2015-16 | Rs.14.25 Lacs | | 2. | Cash received on sale of properties during FY 2016-17 | Rs.7.43 Lacs | | 3. | Re-deposit of cash withdrawn | Rs.3.00 Lacs | | 4. | Business Receipts in cash | Rs.9.63 Lacs | | | Total | Rs.34.31

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saldi (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144Section 80T

considered the deposits as well as interest income as the income of the assessee and made assessment of Rs.23.97 Lacs 2. During first appeal, it transpired that the assessee acted as a small-time vendor of snacks and earned business income. She also stated that deposits of Rs.21.68 Lacs were

The Katohar Khurd Co-Op Agriculture Service Scoiety Limited, Amb vs. Income Tax Officer, Una

ITA 197/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Poplani (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 57Section 69ASection 80ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

assessee derived interest of Rs.42,47,498/- from various time deposits which was also added as income from other sources. 3. During first appeal, the assessee filed additional evidences / additional grounds which were subjected to remand proceedings. After due consideration of relevant material and remand report, Ld. CIT(A) held

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Ludhiana vs. Vishal Singh, Ludhiana

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 169/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.169/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ito Ward 2(1) Shri Vishal Singh Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar H.No 6998 St No 2 बनाम/ Vs. Ludhiana.141001 Basti Jodhewal Ludhiana.141001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Isdps-5952-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Aman Parti (Advocate) – Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 27-12- 2024 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 26-12- 2022. The Ld. Ao Assessed The Income Of The Assessee By Making Various Additions. The Assessee Failed To Make Any Effective

For Appellant: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Aman Parti (Advocate) – Ld. AR
Section 144Section 251(1)(a)

considered opinion that the assessment was framed on best judgment basis and the assessee filed fresh submissions / evidences during first appeal. Since the same would have material bearing on the assessment of the assessee, Ld. AO was directed to make fresh assessment. In our opinion, on the facts

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Ludhiana vs. Romex Industrial Corporat Ion, Ludhiana

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 168/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.168/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ito-Ward 2(1) M/S Romex Industrial Corporation बनाम/ Aaykar Bhawan 439/1A, Naya Mohalla Brown Road Rishi Nagar Ludhiana. Ludhiana (East) Central Post Office S.O. Vs. Ludhiana. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabfr-6473-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 10-12- 2024 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 31-03- 2022. The Ld. Ao Assessed The Income Of The Assessee By Making Addition Of Rs.199.59 Lacs. The Assessee Failed To Make Any Effective

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

considered opinion that the assessment was framed on best judgment basis and the assessee filed fresh submissions / evidences during first appeal. Since the same would have material bearing on the assessment of the assessee, Ld. AO was directed to make fresh assessment. In our opinion, on the facts

Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Ludhiana vs. Nand Mangal Steels Limited, Ludhiana

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 160/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri J.S. Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. AR
Section 144Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

considered opinion that the assessment was framed on best judgment basis and the assessee filed fresh submissions / evidences during first appeal. Since the same would have material bearing on the assessment of the assessee, Ld. AO was directed to make fresh assessment. In our opinion, on the facts

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (in Situ), Cl-I, Ludhiana vs. Mahesh Goyal, Ludhiana

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 154/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.154/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Jcit (In- Situ) Shri Mahesh Goyal बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Surya Commercial Centre Circle-1, Ludhiana. Opp. Pau Gate No -1 Vs. Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abgpg-2297-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 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 04-12- 2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 31-03- 2022. The Ld. Ao Assessed The Income Of The Assessee By Making Addition Of Rs.230.60 Lacs. The Assessee Failed To Make Any Effective

For Appellant: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 147Section 251(1)(a)

considered opinion that the assessment was framed on best judgment basis and the assessee filed fresh submissions / evidences during first appeal. Since the same would have material bearing on the assessment of the assessee, Ld. AO was directed to make fresh assessment. In our opinion, on the facts

Rahul Jain S/O Shri Rakesh Jain, Gali Kanda Wali, Noharia Bazar, Sirsa, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Sirsa

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 1219/CHANDI/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1219/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri Rahul Jain Dcit Ward-1 (S/O Shri Rakesh Jain) Sector 20, Huda बनाम/ Vs. Gali Kanda Wali Sirsa Nohara Bazar, Sirsa. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aorpj-8009-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur(Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 30-09-2024 Confirming Penalty Of Rs.98.07 Lacs U/S 271Aab As Levied By Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated 12-03- 2018. The Registry Has Noted Minor Delay Of 19 Days In The Appeal Which Stands Condoned. The Ld. Ar, Drawing Attention To The Factual Matrix, Referred To Various Judicial Decisions To Assail The Impugned

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur(Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 271ASection 274

search, Ld. AO levied penalty of Rs.98.07 Lacs u/s 271AAB(1) which was computed at 30% of undisclosed income of Rs.326.90 Lacs. 2.2 During first appeal, the assessee assailed impugned penalty on merits as well as on legal grounds by contending that there was no valid satisfaction for the default

Mahajan Conveyer Industries, Kangra vs. ITO-Ward, Palampur

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1056/CHANDI/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

For Appellant: Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43(1)Section 80Section 801C

based on view taken in AY 2012-13 which is pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee’s first appeal for AY 2012-13 would have direct bearing on computation of Written Down Value (WDV) of fixed asset for this year and consequential claim of depreciation

Mahajan Conveyer Industries, Kangra vs. ITO-Ward, Palampur

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1055/CHANDI/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

For Appellant: Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43(1)Section 80Section 801C

based on view taken in AY 2012-13 which is pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee’s first appeal for AY 2012-13 would have direct bearing on computation of Written Down Value (WDV) of fixed asset for this year and consequential claim of depreciation

Mahajan Conveyer Industries, Kangra vs. ITO-Ward, Palampur

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1054/CHANDI/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1053/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1054/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1055/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1056/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita 1052/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Mahajan Conveyer Industries Acit Circle-1 बनाम/ Plot No 32 To 35, Industrial Area, Palampur Bai Attarian Tehsil Indora Vs. Kangra (Hp) 176202 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aanfm-3447-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025

For Appellant: Shri J.S.Bhasin (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 43(1)Section 80Section 801C

based on view taken in AY 2012-13 which is pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee’s first appeal for AY 2012-13 would have direct bearing on computation of Written Down Value (WDV) of fixed asset for this year and consequential claim of depreciation