“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

Satbichar Distributors Private Limited, Kanpur vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 448/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250

assessee is in appeal before the Bench raising the following grounds of appeal: “1.1) That the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the First Appeal order u/s 250 in an ex-parte manner, without adjudicating on the grounds raised by the appellant on merits, thereby rendering the order unsustainable

Madanlal Mohanlal Hingad, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 575/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Madanlal Mohanlal Hingad Acit, Cpc Cell – Tds / Room No. 31 & 32, Wadi Mansion, Vs Ito, Ward – 20(1)(1) G.R. Road, Hindmata, Dadar, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai – 400014. Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400012. [Pan: Aaaph5096B] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 200ASection 234ESection 254(1)

filing appeal is filed by assessee. Similarly, the order under section 200A was passed by assessing officer / ITO, TDS / CPC on 22.10.2021 and first appeal before ld. CIT(A) was filed only on 07.11.2022, thus, there was an inordinate delay even in filing first appeal. No application for condonation

Govind Corporation, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 8(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 3229/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

taxed @ 30% under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of the assessee. 6. In the first appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the order of the AO by observing that the documents submitted as evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction ... surfaced directly in the order of assessment and were never confronted by ld AO during the course of assessment 11 proceedings. Further, in the first appeal filed by assessee against the said order of assessment, the said issue of cross examination was raised before ld. CIT (A) which was never

Late Darius Motashaw (Through Legal Rep Jehan Motashaw ), Mumbai vs. Cental Circle 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6352/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

share in the sale of immovable property and Death certificate of Dr. Rusi Motashaw were submitted during the assessment proceedings as well as First Appeal Proceedings. 9. However, still the revenue authorities were not satisfied / convinced on the point as to whether the assessee received the amount from RGN Trust

Late Darius Motashaw, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6350/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

Late Darius Motashaw, Mumbai vs. JCIT CC 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6349/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

Late Darius Motashaw (Through Legal Rep Jehan Motashaw), Mumbai vs. Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6348/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

Late Darius Motashaw (Trough Legal Representativa Jehan Motashaw ), Mumbai vs. Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6347/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

Late Darius Motashaw ( Through Legal Rep Jehan Motashaw ), Mumbai vs. JCIT Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6346/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

Late Darius Motashaw (Through Legal Representative Jehan Motashaw ), Mumbai vs. Central Circle 4(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6345/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(3)Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 4(3)Section 69

The Happy School, Gurugram vs. Income Tax Officer Exemptions Ward, Faridabad

ITA 3373/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

assessee has wrongly filed another appeal before the ITAT, registered as ITA No. 3373/Del/2025, which is dismissed having become infructuous. 3. This assessee’s first appeal ITA Nos. 3354/Del/2025 raises the following substantive grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred ... direct the learned Assessing Officer to frame its consequential computation as per law after verifying all the relevant facts. 5. These assessee’s first appeal ITA No.3354/Del/2025 is allowed and the second appeal ITA No.3373/Del/2025 is dismissed as a duplicate file. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th July

The Happy School, Gurugram vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Faridabad

ITA 3354/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)

The Gokak & Mudalagi Taluka Primary Teachers Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Gokak vs. Income Tax Officer, Gokak

ITA 33/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 033/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Gokak & Mudalagi Taluka Primary Teachers Co-Op. Society, Ltd. Opp. Jss College, Falls Road, Gokak, Dist. Belagavi.-591307 Pan : Aaaat4120D . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Gokak, Belagavi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Sateesh Nadagauda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Ms Rijjula Uniyal [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 15/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; By Captioned Appeal The Assessee Impugns Din & Order 1071086412(1) Dt. 11/12/2024 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. 31/03/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By National Faceless E-Asstt Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Ao’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2018-19 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

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

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(b)

eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(b) of the Act. 2.3 Aggrieved by denial of deduction the assessee unsuccessfully contested the dispute in first appeal before the Ld. NFAC/CIT(A). ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 6 The Gokak & Mudalagi Taluka Primary Teachers Co-op. Society, Ltd. Vs ITO, ITA Nos.033/PAN/2025 ... however missed the same to adjudicate on its merits. Thus the respective ground of appeal raised in Form No 35 by the appellant in first appeal remained unadjudicated. In the present appeal, the appellant assessee also raised the same ground, which ostensibly did not pass through the impugned first appellate

Rakesh Kumar Jain, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 212/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal & / Or Modify Any Of The Above Grounds.

For Appellant: Shri C.L. Yadav, CA and Shri Vikas Yadav AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

imposed on the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.’’[Para 5 Page no-3 of the Penalty order of the AO] In first appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO mainly holding as under:- ‘’8. In view of the above, it has to be held that

Sajal Bansal, Kaithal, Haryana vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-2, Kaithal, Ambala Road

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 956/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.956/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Sajal Bansal Ito House No. 941 Huda Sector 19 Ambala Road बनाम/ Vs. Part 2, S.O. Kaithal Kaithal Kaithal-136027 Haryana "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aaxpb-4803-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ : Shri Ashok Goyal (Ca) & Shri Sifatpreet Singh (Ca) – Ld. Ars Appellant By ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl.Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 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 Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Central (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 22-07-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S. 144 R.W.S.143(3)

For Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl.CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR by

Section 144Section 145(3)

made impugned addition of Rs.35.36 Lacs. The Ld. AO also made separate addition of unexplained cash deposit for Rs.28.30 Lacs which stood deleted in first appeal and the same do not form subject matter of present appeal before us. 3. During appellate proceedings, the assessee’s submissions were subjected

Pola Co Operative Societies Limited, Fatehgarh Sahib vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Sirhind, Sirhind

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1146/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1146/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Pola Co-Operative Societies Limited Ito Village Pola बनाम/ Vs. Ward Sirhind Fatehgarh Sahib 140406 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aabat-3441-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca)– Ld. Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Kusum Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Central (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 15-10- 2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S 144 Of The Act On 24-05-2021. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Assessment Of Income At Rs.554.22 Lacs. The Assessee Has Failed To Appear Before Ld. Ao. The Ld. Cit(A) Did

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal (CA)– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Kusum Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 144

delay of 2.5 months. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The only prayer of Ld. AR is condonation of delay in first appeal and disposal of appeal on merits. The Ld. AR has stated that the assessee is in a position to substantiate its claim if another ... laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (7 SCC 123), we condone the delay in first appeal and set aside the impugned order and restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication

Madison Teamworks Film Promotions and Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 10(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 3534/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh ChauguleFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 246ASection 250Section 264Section 264(4)Section 40A(3)

taken by the CIT(A). The scheme of the Act does not providing filing separate appeals against the same assessment order. In case the first appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 30/10/2015, would have been pending, the Assessee would have been within its right to raise ... additional ground. Even in case, where the first appeal preferred by the Assessee was dismissed on account of technical reasons, as was the case in the judicial precedent cited by the learned Authorised Representative noted in paragraph 6 above, the Assessee would have a case for challenging the action

Chanderkumar Omprakash HUF, Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Vashi

In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee

ITA 2331/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Chanderkumaromprakash Huf Ito,Ward– 28(1)(3), Mumbai Revenue-22, Apmc Market, Phase Ii, Vs Vashi Railway Station, Vashi, Turbhe, Navi Mumbai – 400705. Navi Mumbai-400705. [Pan No. Aabhc5968A] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 254(1)

have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the record. Considering the fact that at the time of filing first appeal before ld. CIT(A), the assessee provided primarily email address finance@omsomgroup.com. and secondly email address mohitcmurgai@omsomgroup.com. However, no notice under section 250 was not issued through

Padma Estates Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

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

ITA 5723/DEL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 5723/Del/2024 (A.Y 2010-11) Padma Estates Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner Of (Cindy Goods & Supply Pvt. Ltd., Tax , Since Amalgamation) Central Circle, Noida 277, B. B. Ganguly Street, Kolkata, West Bengal Pan: Aabcp5462H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca, Shri Gagan Khandelwal, Adv & Shri Jaind Kumar, Adv Revenue By Ms. Poojaswaroop, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025

Section 68

preferred the Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Since, there was a delay of 2 Padma Estates (P). Ltd. 864 days and filing the first Appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 21/11/2024 , dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee on delay in latches. Aggrieved by the order ... Assessee preferred the present Appeal. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the first Appeal though there was sufficient cause the condone the delay, therefore, sought for allowing the present Appeal of the Assessee. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative

Dpl Builders Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 3, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1981/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwali.T.A. No. 1976/Del/2023 (A.Y 2013-14) I.T.A. No. 1977/Del/2023 (A.Y 2014-15) I.T.A. No. 1978/Del/2023 (A.Y 2016-17) I.T.A. No. 1979/Del/2023 (A.Y 2017-18) I.T.A. No. 1980/Del/2023 (A.Y 2018-19) I.T.A. No. 1981/Del/2023 (A.Y 2019-20) Dpl Builders Private Limited Vs Acit 46, South Ganesh Nagar, Central Circle-3 Patparganj, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aadcd4410D Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Ms.Poojaswaroop, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/07/2025

have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative andperused the material. As could be seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), all the first appeals have been dismissed ex-parte vide order impugned. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has also not adjudicated all the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee