“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

Upendra Kumar Soni, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle-Kota, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, both the appeals of the assesee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 826/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69A

assessment year 2017-18 is assessed by the AO at Rs.6,35,03,480/- u/s 144 read with section 153A of the Act. In first appeal, the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as the assessee did not furnish any submission / argument during appellate proceedings ... assessed by the AO at Rs.7,67,24,350/- u/s 144 read with section 153B(1)(b) of the Act. 5.2 In first appeal, the ld CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO with following narrations. Ground No. 1 & 2 of the assessee:- Ld. CIT(A)’s findings

Dharmendra Kumar, Bhanwargarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Baran

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

ITA 1322/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil Agarwal, CA, (Thru: V.C.)For Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 249(4)

penalty proceedings u/s 271F is initiated. Tax u/s 115BBE is charged on Rs.16,03,000/- as per the addition is made u/s 69A. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal as per the provisions of Section 249(4) of the Act and thus he dismissed

Arka Eduserve Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 817/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)Section 37

employee’s contribution under ESI Act. 3. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the said intimation/order and the aforesaid additions by filing of first appeal belatedly before the Ld. Commissioner on dated 27/04/2021, as against last date for filing the appeal was 04/12/2019. The Assessee therefore also filed an application

Mr. Aman Agarwal, Rudrapur vs. ITO, Rudrapur

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

ITA 237/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 237/Ddn/2024 (A.Y 2017-18) Mr.Aman Agarwal Vs. Income Tax Officer Plot No. B 06, Street No. 02, 2(1)(4)(, Rudrapur, Income Near Shiv Mandir, Model Tax Office, Rudrapur- Colony, Rudrapur, 263153, 263153, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan: Aoppa3091L Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2025

Section 144Section 147Section 154Section 69A

inordinate delay of 245 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 the Department's Representative and perused ... make way for the cause of substantial justice. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we condone the delay of 245 days in filing the first Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction

Limagrain India Private Limited, Secunderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 546/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271GSection 92D

preventing the assessee from filing these evidences before TPO coupled with the ITA No.546/Hyd/2025 7 fact that the present appeal before us is the first appeal against assessment-order passed by AO, we are persuaded to admit these evidences. However, these evidences go to the root of the matter

V V Transport, Rohtak vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 989/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] V.V. Transport, Vs Acit, 96-A, Sindhu Bhawan, Rohtak Subhash Nagar, Rohtak, Haryana-124001. Pan-Aadfv5250G Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Sakshi Pandey, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08.08.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.01.20248 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)/Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.Cit(A), Rohtak/10584/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 20.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm, Engaged In The Business Of Running Of Petrol Pump. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Appeal Was Filed On 28.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 4,29,25,730/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny For The Reasons Of Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 24.09.2018. After Considering The Submissions & The Books Of Accounts Submitted, The Ao Had Taken No Adverse Inference On The Issue Of Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period However, He Has Made Disallowance Of Inr 12,20,700/- By Holding That The Assessee Has Made Interest Free Advances To Staff & To One Of The Partners Whereas It Is Paying Interest On The Borrowings. In First Appeal, Ld.Cit(A) Has Deleted The Disallowance Made Out Of The Interest Payments Towards The Staff Advances Given However, Confirmed The Disallowance On Account Of Advances Given To The Partner Of Inr 1 Crore.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 36

assessee has made interest free advances to staff and to one of the partners whereas it is paying interest on the borrowings. In first appeal, Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the disallowance made out of the interest payments towards the staff advances given however, confirmed the disallowance on account of advances

Shri Gurdev Singh, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Moga

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

ITA 2/ASR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rupender Kansal, Adv

Section 147Section 250Section 271A

bank, and these transactions does not relate to the assessee personally and the assessment proceedings has been completed ex-parte and the first appeal has also been dismissed without admission due to delay in filing of the appeal without adjudication of the case. 5. In course of hearing before

Goa P W D Staff Co Op Credit Society Limited, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1) Panaji Goa, Panaji

ITA 107/PAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 107/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Goa Pwd Staff Co-Operative Credit Society Limited. Pwd New Building, Altinho, Panaji Goa-403 001. Pan : Aabag5329G . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Vinod Totekar [‘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)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

assessee on its term deposits held with Goa State Co- operative Bank Limited[‘GSCBL’]. Aggrieved by the disallowance matter travelled up in first appeal, wherein the Ld. NFAC partly allowed the appeal by confirming the denial in line with the notings of the Ld. AO. While confirming the said denial

Rajyeshwar Retail Trade Systems Pvt Ltd, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

In the result- Impugned order is set aside and Penalty of

ITA 32/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 27Section 271(1)(b)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by order in first appeal No: CIT(A)-3, Bhopal/IT/10835/2014-15 dated 29.11.2024 passed by he Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred ... dated 30.03.2021 which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Penalty Order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Penalty Order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act, before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned order” has dismissed the first appeal of the assessee

Aquarelle India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1097/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kumar, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N., Ld. JCIT-DR

Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 43B

account of delay in payment of gratuity u/s. 43B of the Act. 5. The assessee being aggrieved challenged the said additions/ disallowances by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order though deleted the addition made by the AO on account not allowing the deduction claimed

Anuj Kumar, Dehradun vs. ACIT DCIT Central Circle, Dehradun

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 56/DDN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Anuj Kumar Vs. Acit Dcit Central Circle, Haripur, Kalsi, Dehradun, Investigation Wing, Cross Road, Uttarakhand Dehradun, Uttarakhand Pan: Aetpk0635A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Harshit Gupta, Ca Revenue By Sh. S. K. Chatterjee, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/08/2025 Order Per Yogesh Kumar, U.S. Jm: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.

Section 115BSection 132Section 139(1)Section 40A(3)Section 44ASection 69C

learned CIT(Appeals) is based on conjecture and surmises. The Learned CIT(Appeals) completely disregarded the submissions filed by the appellant during the First Appeal proceedings, leading to confirmation of unjust addition. 5) The appellant craves leave to reserve its right to add to, delete from, amend, alter or modify

Areca Global Associates Private Limited, Guwahati vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/GTY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: The

Section 154Section 250

presenting the facts. However, since even before us there is no written submission about the reasons for the assessee’s inability to file the first appeal in time at first appeal stage, hence we are constrained to remand this matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with ... expectation that the assessee would file an affidavit detailing the circumstances which resulted in the delay of 179 days in filing of the first appeal. We would expect the Ld. CIT(A) would consider the reasons for delay within the purview of section 249(3) of the Act and thereafter

Prime Constructions, Bhopal vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Bhopal

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 742/IND/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271ASection 69C

provisions of section 69C, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC are separately initiated. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “Impugned Assessment Order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act, Page 2 of 7 Prime Construction A.Y. 2018-19 before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the “Impugned order ... partly allowed, the first appeal of the assessee on the grounds & reasons stated therein. The core ground & reason for partly allowing the first appeal was as under in the Impugned Order:- “8. The submission of the appellant and the Assessment order made by the AO were perused during appellate proceedings

Income Tax Officer Ward 5(1) Indore, Indore vs. Vishnu Kumar Palod, Indore

Appeals are dismissed, he would not be pressing cross-objections

ITA 741/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(c)

Date of Hearing 04.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.08.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Bench: Feeling aggrieved by three separate orders of first appeal, all dated 14.08.2024 and all passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arise out of respective assessment-orders ... disputed in these appeals]. Therefore, these cases may be decided on the basis of Grounds of Appeal, Assessment-order and impugned Order of first-appeal of AY 2013-14 and the same adjudication shall apply to all three assessment-years. We have proceeded accordingly. 3.1 The brief facts

Income Tax Officer 5(1) Indore, Indore vs. Vishnu Kumar Palod, Indore

Appeals are dismissed, he would not be pressing cross-objections

ITA 740/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Officer-5(1), Indore vs. Vishnu Kumar Palod, Indore

Appeals are dismissed, he would not be pressing cross-objections

ITA 738/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 271(1)(c)

Mawaliyo Ki Dhani Dugdh Utpadak Mahila Sahakari Samiti Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 7(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 890/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 69C

bother to explain the transactions of cash withdrawal of Rs.1,56,71,000/- and contractual receipts of Rs.2,71,246/- . In first appeal, the ld CIT (A) has confirmed the action of the AO as there was no response from the side 7 MAWALIYO KI DHANI DUGDH UTPADAK MAHILA SAHAKARI

Mata Deen, Kotkasim vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 608/JPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.608/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYear : 2012-13 Shri Mata Deen Mohalla Jatwara, KOTKASIM ALWAR 301 702 (Raj) बनाम Vs. The ITO Ward 6(1) Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AWNPD 0463 H अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.K. Gogra, CA राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing उदघोषणा

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gogra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 148

Since the assesee has concealed her income penalty u/s 271(1)© will also be initiated on this issue.’’ In first appeal, the ld.Addl/JCIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO for the reason that the assessee did not pursue the appeal filed before the ld.Addl/JCIT(A) in spite

Gajendra Nath Srivastav Through L/H Vipin Devi Srivastav, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 564/JPR/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2015-2016

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 153(3)Section 251Section 69ASection 80C

WARD 2(1), AJMER credit in his bank account, addition of Rs1,16,016/- u/s 80C and Rs.10,000/- u/s 80TTA. In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) restored the matter to the file of the AO for de novo assessment by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee ... account of cash deposits and credit in his bank account, addition of Rs1,10,000/- u/s 80C and Rs.10,000/- u/s 80TTA. In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) restored the matter to the file of the AO for de novo assessment by providing adequate opportunity of being heard

Sdc Construction, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 1(3), Jiapur

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

ITA 347/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mathur, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR a

Section 144BSection 147Section 249(4)(a)Section 68

account of the assessee and hence attracts provisions of Section 68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the contention of the assessee has dismissed the appeal of the assessee