← 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

Hdfc Bank Ltd (Successor to Hdfc Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT-2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 1828/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrihdfc Bank Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of (As Successor To Housing Income-Tax-2(3)(1), Mumbai Development Corporation Room No.552, Aaykar Bhavan Finance Limited), M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Hdfc Bank House, Corporate Tax Department, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaach2702H Applicant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri J.D. MistriFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 37(1)

pursuant to “order giving effect” which in our considered view does not fall within the scope of assessment made for giving effect to the first appeal. Since, appeal against the original assessment made u/s. 143(3) is also before us, assessee sought liberty to raise its claim by filing additional

Kripal Singh, Hapur vs. ITO Ward-2(3)(4), Hapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 240/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Shamim Yahya

For Respondent: Shri Vikram Singh Sharma, Senior DR

that inadvertently, a fresh appeal number i.e., ITA No.240/Del/2025 was generated when the assessee had filed corrected documents for removing certain defects in the first appeal i.e. ITA No.5947/Del/2024, which was filed online. Hence, it was prayed that the assessee may be allowed to withdraw the present appeal filed

Abrar Beg Mirza, Khargone vs. Income Tax Officer, Khargone

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

ITA 50/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiabrar Beg Mirza, Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 9 Mugal Bakery, Khargone Vs. Industrial Area, Bhadli, Khargone (Pan: Bgcpm9126Q) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253

referred to as “impugned assessment order” and same is dated 14.12.2017. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on grounds stated

Stuti Construction Pvt Ltd, Nagda vs. ITO 2(2), Ujjain

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

ITA 326/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshistuti Construction Pvt. Ito 2(2), बनाम/ Ltd, Ujjain Vs. 53 Government Colony, Birla Gram, Nagda (Pan: Aahcs3932R) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Anil Kumar Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 68A

dated 30.11.2019 which is hereinafter referred to as “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on grounds stated

Raj Soya Export & Investment Limited, Indore vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Indore

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

ITA 809/IND/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshiraj Soya Export & Nfac, बनाम/ Investment Limited, Delhi Vs. E-14, Saket Nagar, Indore (Pan: Aaecr8686C) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Shri Arpit Gaur, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

No.ITBA/PNL/F/ 271(1)(c)/2021-22/1039638513(1) and is dated 11.02.2022. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned penalty order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the first appeal of the of the assessee ... herein. The core ground and reason for dismissal of the first appeal was as under:- “5.7 Based on the above trail of opportunities provided to the appellant, it appears that the assessee is not keen on pursuing the appeal. Accordingly, given that this office has not received any information

Seema Jain, Indore vs. ITO 1(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 591/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2013-14 Seema Jain, Ito 1(1) 73-Ba, Scheme No.94, Indore Regency Adrise, Near बनाम/ Bombay Hospital, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adtpj4652K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50Section 50C

Date of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.07.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 13.07.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated ... addition of Rs. 12,81,000/- vide penalty-order dated 09.12.2021. Aggrieved by penalty so imposed, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. 3. We have heard learned Representatives of both sides and carefully

Shri P. Chinnadurai, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 984/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.984/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sri P. Chinnadurai, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of No. 23, Railway Colony 2Nd Street, Income Tax, Nelson Manickam Road, Metha Nagar, Central Circle 1(3), Chennai 600 029. Chennai. [Pan:Aabpc6070D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Jaya Shree, F.C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.02.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Raised 4 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition In Part In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Ms. Jaya Shree, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

vide order dated 29.09.2021 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the Act. 4. As aggrieved by the said order, first appeal was preferred before the First Appellate Authority. The ld. CIT(A) as first appellate authority deleted the addition made on account of unaccounted cash

Mahim United Industrial Premises Co Op Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 21(2)(2), Piramal Chamber

In the result, application for condonation of

ITA 2306/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(1)Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

December, 2016. In all three years, the demands were generated immediately and demand notices were served immediately. The assessee filed first appeal before CIT(A) after gap of five years, four years and three years as the case may be. No reasonable cause was explained except on relying self-serving ... that their CA has not advised to file appeal. The assessee is regularly filing return of income year after years. Again, after dismissal of first appeal by ld. CIT(A), the assessee again filed appeal belatedly before Tribunal after a gap of 1156 days. No reasonable or plausible explanation

Mahim United Industrial Premises Co Op Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 21(2)(2), Piramal Chamber

In the result, application for condonation of

ITA 2305/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(1)Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

December, 2016. In all three years, the demands were generated immediately and demand notices were served immediately. The assessee filed first appeal before CIT(A) after gap of five years, four years and three years as the case may be. No reasonable cause was explained except on relying self-serving ... that their CA has not advised to file appeal. The assessee is regularly filing return of income year after years. Again, after dismissal of first appeal by ld. CIT(A), the assessee again filed appeal belatedly before Tribunal after a gap of 1156 days. No reasonable or plausible explanation

Mahim United Industrial Premises Co Op Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 21(2)(2), Piramal Chambers

In the result, application for condonation of

ITA 2304/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(1)Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

December, 2016. In all three years, the demands were generated immediately and demand notices were served immediately. The assessee filed first appeal before CIT(A) after gap of five years, four years and three years as the case may be. No reasonable cause was explained except on relying self-serving ... that their CA has not advised to file appeal. The assessee is regularly filing return of income year after years. Again, after dismissal of first appeal by ld. CIT(A), the assessee again filed appeal belatedly before Tribunal after a gap of 1156 days. No reasonable or plausible explanation

Sh. Mahadev Shikari, U.S.Nagar vs. ITO, Rudrapur

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

ITA 221/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)

Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 782 days, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the first appeal on delay in latches which has been called in question before us. 2 MahadevShikari Vs. ITO 3. The Ld. Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Assessee

Madhya Pradesh Bhoj Open University, Bhopal vs. NFAC, Delhi

ITA 926/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253

impugned assessment order”. This is an order on quantum assessment. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid "impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on grounds stated therein ... core ground and reasons for dismissal of first appeal under the Act was non condonation of delay of 239 days in preferring the first appeal under the Act as no sufficient cause shown. 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order" has preferred the instant second appeal before

Madhya Pradesh Bhoj Open University, Bhopal vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 925/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 253

impugned assessment order”. This is an order on quantum assessment. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on grounds stated therein ... Page 2 of 8 Madhya Pradesh Bhoj Open University ITA Nos. 925&926/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2017-18 The core ground and reasons for dismissal of first appeal under the Act was non condonation of delay of 239 days in preferring the first appeal under the Act as no sufficient cause shown. 2.3 That

Ajay Kumar Agrawal, Gumasta Nagar, Indore vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi

ITA 853/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 16.07.2025 आदेश / ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 10.10.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi

Syed Akbar Hussain, Bhopal vs. CIT(Appeals), Unit-3 Coimbatore, Coimbatore

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

ITA 794/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshisyed Akbar Hussain, Cit (Appeals), बनाम/ 17/1, A Sector Unit-3, Vs. Bda Colony, Coimbatore Koh E Fiza, Bhopal (Pan: Aisph4608P) (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee By Ms. Saniya Farhan Memon, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253

dated 31.10.2019 which is hereinafter referred to as “impugned assessment order”. 2.2 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on grounds stated

Manish Kumar Agrawal, Neemuch vs. NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 736/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250(6)

Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 16.07.2025 ame] /ORDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 10.09.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated ... satisfied. Ultimately, the AO made addition of Rs. 1,10,79,638/- as unexplained income and completed assessment. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first appeal but did not get any success. Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us. Page 2 of 5 3. Manish Kumar Agrawal

Amico Textiles, Solan vs. DCIT CC-1, Chandigarth

The appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 431/CHANDI/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.431/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S Amico Textiles Dcit Village Bir Plassi, Ropar Road, Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Nalagarh, Solan Chandigarh Himachal Pradesh 176077 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaqfa-9823-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Neeraj Jain (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 23-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [Cit(A)] Dated 31-03-2022 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 30-12-2016. The Substantial Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.63.27 Lacs. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed Off As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Jain (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69

same allegedly contained unaccounted receipts of the assessee which assessee denied. However, Ld. AO added the same to the income of the assessee. During first appeal, the assessee, alternatively, contended that the receipts should be taxed at business profit rate basis. Concurring with the same, Ld. CIT(A) applied profit

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Private Limited, Haryana

ITA 1248/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 40Section 80Section 80I

DCIT Vs. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India P. Ltd. 5 Officer disallowed substantial amounts claimed as depreciation on goodwill that arose pursuant to amalgamation. In first appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted these disallowances following judicial precedents and the assessee’s consistent claim accepted in prior years. The Revenue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Private Limited, Haryana

ITA 1247/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 40Section 80Section 80I

DCIT Vs. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India P. Ltd. 5 Officer disallowed substantial amounts claimed as depreciation on goodwill that arose pursuant to amalgamation. In first appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted these disallowances following judicial precedents and the assessee’s consistent claim accepted in prior years. The Revenue

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India Private Limited, Haryana

ITA 1246/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 40Section 80Section 80I

DCIT Vs. Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare India P. Ltd. 5 Officer disallowed substantial amounts claimed as depreciation on goodwill that arose pursuant to amalgamation. In first appeal, the learned CIT(A) deleted these disallowances following judicial precedents and the assessee’s consistent claim accepted in prior years. The Revenue