← 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

Ajay Kumar Gupta, District Bhind vs. ITO, Gwalior

In the result, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 291/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 250

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2015-16, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal, confirming the assessment order dated 28.11.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 2. During the course of hearing, learned AR pressed assessee

Gandharv Singh, Gwalior vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 285/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 250

records and heard learned representative of the assessee and learned departmental representative. 4. It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee filed first appeal before the first appellate authority on 13.02.2020 against the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 by a delay of 9 days. The reasons stated for condonation ... this delay in filing first appeal before learned CIT(Appeals) were that all the relevant papers were handed over by assessee to his AR within time, but the same were misplaced at the office of his AR, which led to file the appeal by a delay of 9 days

Harveer Parihar, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer- 1(2)(1), Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 282/AGR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 250

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2012-13, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal exparte, confirming the addition of Rs.6,01,200/- made vide assessment order dated 26.12.2019 as unexplained bank deposits, treating it as income

Bhagwan Swaroop, Aligarh vs. The I.T.O. Ward 4(1)(1), Aligarh

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 276/AGR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 144Section 147Section 250

hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018-19, wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal ex parte as non-maintainable, being barred by limitation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment in the present matter was framed ... making an addition of Rs.1,06,45,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee filed first appeal on 18.08.2023 against this assessment order dated 10.03.2023. As per assessee, the first appeal was filed within prescribed time limit of 30 days

Mubim Began, Etawah vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), Etawah

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 273/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: :Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 250

records and heard learned representative of the assessee and learned departmental representative. 6. It transpires from the perusal of records that the assessee filed first appeal before the first appellate authority on 04.05.2022 against the 2 | P a g e assessment order dated 25.03.2022. The assessee neither filed any delay ... opportunity to the assessee to file delay condonation application before the ld. CIT(Appeals), assigning the reasons for delay, if any, in filing the first appeal. 7. In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. We restore the matter back to the file

Ashok Kumar Goyal, Gwalior vs. DCIT/ACIT 1(1), Gwalior

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 268/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2013-14, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal, confirming the addition of Rs.1,23,10,312/- treating the same to be an income from other sources instead of short-term capital gains

Jitendra Pal Singh, Jhansi vs. ITO Ward 2(3)1 Jhansi, Jhansi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 257/AGR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 250Section 250(6)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018- 19, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal exparte. 2. At the very outset, we notice that the assessee filed this second appeal on 12.05.2025 against the impugned order passed ... accordingly condoned. 4. This appeal has been preferred on the ground, in addition to other grounds, that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the first appeal without affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. Perused the records and heard learned

Chandra, Shahganj vs. Ward1(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 256/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2015-16, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal exparte, confirming the addition of Rs.58,56,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained bank deposits, treating it as income of the assessee

Hma Agro Industries Limited, Agra vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle, Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 252/AGR/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 250Section 250(6)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014-15, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal, confirming the demand of Rs.5,16,02,434/- raised by the Assessing Officer on account of non-deduction/short deduction of tax at source

Manoj Jairamdas Bhojwani, Etawah vs. ITO, Ward-2(2)(5), Etawah

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 247/AGR/2025[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2004-05

Section 250Section 250(6)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2004-05, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal exparte. 2. At the very outset, we notice that the assessee filed this second appeal on 02.05.2025 against the impugned order dated ... condoned. 3. This appeal has been preferred on the ground, in addition to other grounds, that the ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in dismissing first appeal ex parte in violation of section 250(6) of the Act. 4. Perused the records and heard learned representative for the assessee

Sneha Pandey, Etawah vs. Income Tax Officer 2(2)(5) Etawah, Etawah

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 138/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for the assessment year 2020-21, wherein learned CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee's first appeal, confirming the addition of Rs.26,99,500/- being the difference between the fair market value of property sold of Rs.55,99,500/- and declared

Rubinder Kaur Prop. M/S Shree Sai Entperprises Opp. Nand Lal Market, Motia Khan Mandi Gobindgarh, Mandi Gobindgarh vs. The Income Tax Officer-1(5), Ludhiana

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 93/CHANDI/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.93/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Smt. Rubinder Kaur Ito (Prop. M/S Shree Sai Enterprises) Ward- 1(5) बनाम/ Vs. Opp. Nand Lal Market, Ludhiana. Motia Khan . Mandi Gobindgarh-147301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Dyopk-2234-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri Rohit Garg (Ca) (Virtual Mode) – Ld. Ar By ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30-07-2025 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 Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 21-11-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.144B Of The Act On 29-12- 2022. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Additions

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Garg (CA) (Virtual Mode) – Ld. AR by ""For Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of additions of Rs.229.84 Lacs. The assessee failed to make any representation during first appeal and accordingly, the assessment was confirmed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us. The only prayer of Ld. AR is another opportunity of hearing before

Shivaji Vithalrao Narhare, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur

ITA 1107/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1107/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shivaji Vithalrao Narhare, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.236, Suraya Bungal, S Ward-1, Latur. Avishkar Housing Society, Rto Office, Babalgaon Roads, Sarola, Latur – 413512. Maharashtra. Pan: Aahpn3610J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr.Govind D. Chevale - Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 29/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 08.04.2024, Emanating From Order U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 27.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 18Section 250Section 57

BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD since it did not accept any portion of the award passed by the District Court. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation filed first appeal stamp No 10535 of 2013 and Civil Application No 7578 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

B.S.N.L Employees Junior Co Operative Credit Society Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 17(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3263/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Shekhar Patwardhan, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Letaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Assessing Officer (AO). 2 M/s. B.S.N.L. Employees Junior Co-operative Credit Society Limited 3. The Assessee, being aggrieved, challenged the said disallowance by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order though granted partial relief to the Assesse, however directed the AO to call for the details

Apsara Oswal, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi

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

ITA 580/DEL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Pareekassessment Year : 2019-20

Section 144Section 144C(3)Section 250

income of the assesseewas assessed at Rs. 4,45,28,218/- as against the returned income of Rs. 2,97,032/-. The assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A) ,but again there was no representation on behalf of the assessee and the appeal of the assessed was dismissed

Rakesh Kumar Goel, New Rajdhani Enclave vs. CIT, NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3378/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalrakesh Kumar Goel, Cit, 289/9, Katra Pedan, Nfac. Tilak Bazar, Delhi-110006. Vs. Pan-Aaepg7376H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/07/2025 O R D E R [ Per Manish Agarwal, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A) In Short], In Appeal No. Cit(A), Delhi- 16/10301/2018-19 Dated 11.05.2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act, In Short) For Assessment Year 2016- 17 Is Arising Out From The Order Of Assessing Officer Dated 28.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 250

rate 7.28% declared by the assessee was applied to work out the undisclosed profits of Rs. 3,92,06,665/-. In first appeal, in the submission made before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee contended that considering the production of December 2015 as the benchmark for making estimation of production

Jagdeesh Prasad, Agra vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(1), Agra, Aaykar Bhawan Sanjay Place

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

ITA 275/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 147Section 249(3)Section 69A

Assessment Year 2024-25. Until that point, he had no knowledge of any ongoing or concluded proceedings. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6. That on 05/10/2024 the first appeal authority ie. CIT(A) / NFAC issued a notice u/s 250 for the hearing of the said appeal in response of the corroborative documentary evidence

Late Aniceto Anacleto Pereira L/S Palmira Isabella Pereira, Miramar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4), Panaji

ITA 308/PAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms Eesha Dukle [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 251(1)Section 253(1)Section 69A

Through L/H Palmira Isabella Pereira Vs ITO ITA No.: 308/PAN/2024 AY: 2017-18 The primary grievance in present appeals twirls 2. around dismissal of first appeal without adjudicating the legal ground raised therein thus in contravention of s/s (6) of 250 of the Act. As we note that, the assessee ... have heard rival party’s submissions on limited issue which inter-alia concerning non-adjudication of legal ground raised by the appellant in first appeal and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 perused material placed on record and considered facts in the light of settled position

Binal Vikash Bhardwaj, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 3462/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

purchase value in the first round and 2% of purchase value was sustained by the CIT [A] in 1st round of first appeal. 4. Vide order dated 08.11.2017 the matter was restored to the AO by The Hon ITAT. 5. In 2(nd) round, the AO again added ... purchase value as against 2% sustained by the CIT [A] in 1st round of first appeal. 6. Due to non-compliance to the notices, the ex parte order was thereby passed by the CIT[A] NFAC and addition was confirmed on account of purchases for A Y2010-11 in second

Binal Vikash Bhardwaj, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 3461/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

purchase value in the first round and 2% of purchase value was sustained by the CIT [A] in 1st round of first appeal. 4. Vide order dated 08.11.2017 the matter was restored to the AO by The Hon ITAT. 5. In 2(nd) round, the AO again added ... purchase value as against 2% sustained by the CIT [A] in 1st round of first appeal. 6. Due to non-compliance to the notices, the ex parte order was thereby passed by the CIT[A] NFAC and addition was confirmed on account of purchases for A Y2010-11 in second