← 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

Hi Tech Foods, Parwanoo vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shimla

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 74/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.54/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.56/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.74/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.57/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.58/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Hi Tech Foods Ito Ward-1 बनाम/ Nh-22, Sector-6, Upmohal Parwanoo, Aaykar Bhawan-1 Vs. Sector-Vi, Solan (Hp) -173220 Shimla (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfh-7996-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

banking channels. However, Ld. AO rejected the claim of the assessee and disallowed the entire purchases of Rs.48,86,851/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal against the same. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 The assessee, by way of elaborate written submissions, assailed the stand taken by Ld. AO on legal grounds

Hi Tech Foods, Parwanoo vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shimla

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 58/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.54/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.56/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.74/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.57/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.58/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Hi Tech Foods Ito Ward-1 बनाम/ Nh-22, Sector-6, Upmohal Parwanoo, Aaykar Bhawan-1 Vs. Sector-Vi, Solan (Hp) -173220 Shimla (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfh-7996-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

banking channels. However, Ld. AO rejected the claim of the assessee and disallowed the entire purchases of Rs.48,86,851/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal against the same. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 The assessee, by way of elaborate written submissions, assailed the stand taken by Ld. AO on legal grounds

Hi Tech Foods, Parwanoo vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shimla

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 57/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.54/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.56/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.74/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.57/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.58/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Hi Tech Foods Ito Ward-1 बनाम/ Nh-22, Sector-6, Upmohal Parwanoo, Aaykar Bhawan-1 Vs. Sector-Vi, Solan (Hp) -173220 Shimla (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfh-7996-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

banking channels. However, Ld. AO rejected the claim of the assessee and disallowed the entire purchases of Rs.48,86,851/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal against the same. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 The assessee, by way of elaborate written submissions, assailed the stand taken by Ld. AO on legal grounds

Hi Tech Foods, Parwanoo vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shimla

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 56/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.54/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.56/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.74/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.57/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.58/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Hi Tech Foods Ito Ward-1 बनाम/ Nh-22, Sector-6, Upmohal Parwanoo, Aaykar Bhawan-1 Vs. Sector-Vi, Solan (Hp) -173220 Shimla (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfh-7996-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

banking channels. However, Ld. AO rejected the claim of the assessee and disallowed the entire purchases of Rs.48,86,851/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal against the same. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 The assessee, by way of elaborate written submissions, assailed the stand taken by Ld. AO on legal grounds

Hi Tech Foods, Solan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shimla

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 55/CHANDI/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.54/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.56/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.74/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.57/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.58/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Hi Tech Foods Ito Ward-1 बनाम/ Nh-22, Sector-6, Upmohal Parwanoo, Aaykar Bhawan-1 Vs. Sector-Vi, Solan (Hp) -173220 Shimla (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfh-7996-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

banking channels. However, Ld. AO rejected the claim of the assessee and disallowed the entire purchases of Rs.48,86,851/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal against the same. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 The assessee, by way of elaborate written submissions, assailed the stand taken by Ld. AO on legal grounds

Hi Tech Foods, Parwanoo vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Shimla

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 54/CHANDI/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.54/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 3. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.56/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 4. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.74/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.57/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.58/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Hi Tech Foods Ito Ward-1 बनाम/ Nh-22, Sector-6, Upmohal Parwanoo, Aaykar Bhawan-1 Vs. Sector-Vi, Solan (Hp) -173220 Shimla (Hp) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfh-7996-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Advocate) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

banking channels. However, Ld. AO rejected the claim of the assessee and disallowed the entire purchases of Rs.48,86,851/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred first appeal against the same. Appellate Proceedings 4.1 The assessee, by way of elaborate written submissions, assailed the stand taken by Ld. AO on legal grounds

Labh Ventures India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed for Statistical purposes

ITA 7008/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2015-16 Labh Ventures India Private Assistant Commissioner Limited, Labh Ventures Of Income Tax, Circle India Private Limited Officer 15(1)(2), Mumbai, 211, 2Nd Floor, Flying Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Clolors, Pr. Din Dayal Maharshi Karve Road, Upadhyay Marg, Lbs Cross New Marine Lines, Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai Mumbai – 400020. – 400 080. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaafl 6787 B Present For: Assessee By : Shri Sagar Momaya (Tax Consultant) Revenue By : Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.08.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [In Short Ld. Commissioner] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’] For The A.Y. 2015-16. 2. In The Instant Case, Though The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Adjournment, However During The Course Of Hearing

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Momaya (Tax Consultant)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. DR)
Section 147Section 250

addition of Rs.2,27,96,496/- on account of disallowance and depreciation. 4. Though the Assessee challenged the aforesaid Assessment Order by filing First Appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however despite issuing three notices, made no compliance, and therefore in the absence of relevant submissions/documents, which the Assessee admittedly failed