“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

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

The appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1053/CHANDI/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

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 1052/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

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

M/S. Tafe Motors Amd Tractors Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1513/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1511, 1512 & 1513/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2017-18 & 2018-19 V. M/S.Tafe Motors & Tractors Ltd., The Dcit, New No.77, Old No.35, Corporate Cirlce-3(1), Pottipati Plaza, Chennai. Nungambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. [Pan: Aacct 2459 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

engines. Subsequently, assessment proceeding was completed u/s 143(3) on 26/03/2013 assessing total income at Rs.225,17,97,174/-. 4. Aggrieved, assessee filed first appeal before the CIT(A). After considering the assessee's submission, the CIT(A) has passed order on 30/01/2015 and partly allowed the appellant's appeal

M/S. Tafe Motors Amd Tractors Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1512/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

M/S. Tafe Motors Amd Tractors Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1511/CHNY/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35

Alhad Narasinh Kulkarni, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Mum-W-(432)(91), Mumbai

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

ITA 2546/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Alhad Narasinh Kulkarni Income Tax Officer Mum-W- Block 5, Flat 304, Jaypee Cghs, (432)(91), Mumbai (Beverly Park), Plot 2, Sector 22, Vs. Dwarka, Delhi – 110077. Pan/Gir No. Adqpk0726N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B. N. Rao, Ca : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr Dr Respondent By : 07.08.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Addl/Jcit (A)-3 Ahmedabad (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dismissed The Appeal Without Considering The Reason For Delay As Proper & Justifiable. 2. Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Ought To Have Considered The Affidavit & The Reasoning Provided In Looking To The Hardship Experienced By The Appellant In Filing Appeal Alhad Narasinh Kulkarni

For Appellant: Shri B. N. Rao, CAFor Respondent: 07.08.2025

Section 143(3)Section 23(4)(b)Section 24Section 250

further contended that the delay in filing of the was not wanton or deliberate and prayed that the delay in filing the first appeal be condoned. 7. The learned Departmental Representative ('ld. DR' for short) for the revenue on the other hand vehemently opposed for condoning the delay in filing

Ratnakar Manikrao Gutte, Gangakhed vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2) Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal

ITA 6106/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant& Shri Pawan Singhit(Ss)A No. 60/Mum/2025 (Ay: 2013-14) (Hybridhearing)

Section 254(1)Section 69B

lower authorities to consider such additional evidence and pass the order afresh. 4. On our specific query about the status of assessment or first appeal in case of Sunil Hi Tech Engineers, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted said appeal is still pending before CIT(A) and that insolvency

M/S Jinabakul Forge Pvt Ltd, B K Kangrali Industrial Area vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, 1, Belgaum

The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 310/PAN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(1)

Jinabakul Forge Pvt. Ltd. Vs NFeAC ITA No.: 310/PAN/2024 AY: 2020-21 The primary grievance in present appeal twirls 2. around dismissal of first appeal without adjudicating the specific ground number 3 raised therein thus in contravention of s/s (6) of 250 of the Act. As we note that

Bardc Bank, Bhatkal vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 295/PAN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2014-15 Bardc Bank Bhatkal Next To Bsnl Tower, Bhatkal, Uttara Kannada. Pan:Aaaap1731G . . . . . . . Appellant

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

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80P

other issues. 7. The issue of Tribunal’s power to adjudicate the ground raised before it in second appeal which did not pass through first appeal came for consideration before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT’ [2025, 171 taxmann.com ... BARDC Bank Bhatkal Vs NFeAC ITA No.295/PAN/2024, AY: 2014-15 passed by first appellate authority, irrespective of such ground was raised in first appeal or not. 8. In summation, on one hand the appellant was deprived of reasonable opportunity and reasonable time to produce all relevant documents/evidence in support

Malti Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-4(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 891/JPR/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Aug 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyalmalti Agarwal, B 13B Girdhar Colony, Murlipura Thana Road, Jaipur 302 039 Pan No.: Aampa 1590K ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 4(3), Jaipur …...Respondent Appellant By : Mr. Dheeraj Borad, Ca Respondent By : Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Jcit Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14/08/2025 O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Mr. Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 154Section 250Section 250(1)Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

unexplained income he levied penalty of Rs. 1,82,310/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act against the assessee and in first appeal the Id. CIT(A) upheld the levy of penalty. 3 Malti Agarwal 3. The correct facts of this case are that the assessee filed return ... cost of stamps, typing, legal fees, registration charges etc. 4. That in view of above mentioned reliefs granted by the Ld. CIT (A) in first appeal and later on under section 154 of the Act, the income from long term capital gain was reduced to a very nominal amount

Amitkumar Navnitbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 984/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.984/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Amitkumar Navnitbhai Patel The Acit बनाम/ A/1-1, Madhav Apartment Circle 2(1)(1) V/S. Opp. Municipal Garden Ahmedabad – 380 015 Vasna Ahmedabad – 390 007 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Amppp 5605 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.F. Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/08/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri P.F. Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC(1) and 270A of the Act and levied interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act. 3. In first appeal, the learned CIT(A) examined the contentions of both the assessee and the AO in detail. It was noted that in the written submissions

Arya Vysya Sangha, Kollegal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Chamarajanagar

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 818/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Ld. JCIT D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Officer (AO). 3. The Assessee though challenged the said addition and reopening of the proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, as it appears from the impugned order, despite of affording various opportunities the Assessee except seeking adjournments which were

Dharwadkar Associates, Hubballi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Hubli

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 645/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Aprameya, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, Ld. JCIT D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Rs.21,73,300/- being cash deposit as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved against the aforesaid additions though preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities the Assessee eventually made no compliance and/or filed no submissions/documents and therefore

Verkey Roymon Kanjirathinkal, Somwarpet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Madikeri

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1164/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Srinivas, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Gale, Ld. Standing

Section 147Section 250

made the addition of Rs.40,97,213/- being excess claim of agricultural income. 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved against the aforesaid addition, preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal, affirming the said addition, by observing as under: “The Assessee failed to provide

Sidhbali Corporation, Kotdwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Kotdwar

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 97/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 97/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2016-17) Sidhbali Corporation Vs. Income Tax Officer Old Sidhbali Marg, Kotdwear, Income Tax Pauri, Uttarakhand Office,Nazibabad Road, Pan: Ackfs7264E Kotdwar, Pauri, Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. B. R. Garg,Adv Revenue By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/Jcit(A)- Gurugram

Section 154

1 Sidhbali Corporation IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH : “SMC”/ DEHRADUN] BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL

Mukul Garg, Haridwar vs. ITO, Roorkee

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 32/DDN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 32/Ddn/2025 (A.Y 2021-22) Mukul Garg, Vs. Income Tax Officer 383/1, Jadugar Road, Civil Roorkee Lines, Roorkee H. O., Uttarakhand Haridwar, Uttarakhand, India, 247667 Pan: Afdpg7612J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Sahni, Ca Revenue By Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

Section 154Section 154A

Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erroneously dismissed the Appeal without condoning the delay in latches in filing the first appeal and the order impugned is against principals of natural justice. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that there was no sufficient cause to condone ... inordinate delay of 514 days in filing the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the first appeal of the Assessee in delay in latches, thus, sought for dismissal of the present Appeal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused

V S Dempo Holdings Private Limited, Panaji-Goa vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle One

ITA 146/PAN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 146/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2019-20 V. S. Dempo Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Dempo House, Campal, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaace4220P . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rohan Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1074798262(1) Dt. 21/03/2025 Passed By Addl./Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-1, Hyderabad, [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Dt. 25/10/2020 Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act By The Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru [‘Ld. Cpc’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2019-20 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: Mr Rohan Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Capt. Pradeep Arya [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 249Section 250

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. 3. We note that, the return of income ... made in summary assessment was rejected by Ld. CPC vide order dt. 06/12/2022. In view thereof against the original summary assessment the appellant filed first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. NFAC on 21/12/2022. The Ld. NFAC however dismissed the said appeal in limine on the ground

Gurunath Gundu Gojagekar, Belagavi vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Belgavi

ITA 143/PAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji13 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 143/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Gurunath Gundu Gojagekar 508, Hindu Nagar, Tilakwadi, Belgavi-590006. Pan : Aappg4152N . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Belgaum. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Omkar Godbole [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 13/08/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073157632(1) Dt. 12/02/2025 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Rectification Dt. 02/03/2021 Passed U/S 154 Of The Act By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Belagavi [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2013-14 [‘Ay’].

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

Section 154Section 246ASection 250

larger interest of judice deem it fit to condone the same and proceed to adjudicate the limited issue of ex-parte dismissal of first appeal by the Ld. NFAC. Recording the same, advanced accordingly. 3. Without touching the merits and grounds of the appeal, Ld. AR submitted that, the impugned ... case. Admittedly, the appellant could not cause any appearance before the first appellate authority which led to ex-parte dismissal of the first appeal by the Ld. NFAC. From para 5.3 of the impugned order it is clearly evident that during the course of first appellate proceedings the Ld. NFAC

Institute of Defence Studies and Research Foundation (Idsrf), Ahmedabad vs. The ITO Exemption, Ward (1), Ahmedabad.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1047/AHD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 13Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250

learned ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, Chennai, erred in not considering audit report in Form 10BB filed by the Appellant before filing of first appeal. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and withdrawal any ground of appeal anytime up to the hearing of this appeal.” 3. The brief facts

Hubli Saraku Saganikendrara Pattina Sangha Niyamita, Hubbali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Hubli

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 91/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Keerthana MS, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Mr. Balusamy N, Ld. D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 3Section 68Section 80P

taxed at the special rate as provided u/s 115BE of the Act. 4. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said addition by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, despite of affording various opportunities, eventually made no compliance and/or filed no submissions or documents and therefore in the constrained ... preferred the instant appeal. 6. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the Assessee had filed first appeal on dated 09.01.2020 against the assessment order dated 12.12.2019 u/s 3 M/s. Hubli Saraku Saganikendrara Pattina Sangha Niyamita 143(3) of the Act, which was taken