← 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

The Dhelu Gram Sewa Sehkari Sabha Simit, Chauntra vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandi

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 214/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Dhelu Gram Sewa Sehkari Ito Sabha Simit बनाम/ Mandi. Village Bhagehar, Po Chauntra Tehsil Vs. Joginder Nagar, District Mandi "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabat-6445-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ashwani Kumar (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09-07-2025 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 Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 19-12-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 30-03-2022 Disallowing Deduction Claimed By The Assessee U/S 80P. The Ld. Cit(A) Did Not Admit The First Appeal For Want Of Condonation Of Delay Of 147

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 80P

144B of the Act on 30-03-2022 disallowing deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80P. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the first appeal for want of condonation of delay of 147 days. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. The only prayer ... merits with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. The issue of delay shall not be raised in first appeal. 3. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 09-07-2025. (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated

Broadway Charitable Trust, Nadia vs. I.T.O., Ward - 1(2) (Exemption), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes having been remanded to the file of Ld

ITA 969/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Nfac), Delhi, Upholding The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B For The Assessment Year 2018-19, In Respect Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Said Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Nfac), Delhi, Was Passed & Received By Mail On 11.07.2024. Therefore, The Appeal Should Have Been Instituted Within 60 Days From The Receipt Of Such Order, I.E., On Or Before 09.09.2024. 3. The Appeal Is Being Filed On Or After 05.05.2025, With A Prayer For Condonation Of A Delay Of 236 Days.

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

action of Ld. AO in completing the assessment at income of Rs. 63,54,388/- after making certain additions, has been confirmed at first appeal stage mainly on account of non- compliance of the assessee to the notices fixing the case for hearing. The fact of non-compliance has been

Luminous Venture Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 1081/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 250

were filed in time and the appellant had no malafide intention in delaying the impugned First Appeal.” 4. The assessee has filed a similar affidavit in its appeal for the assessment year 2013-14. From the perusal of the impugned orders, we further find that the assessee did not comply

Luminous Venture Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment years

ITA 1078/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ashok BansalFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 250

were filed in time and the appellant had no malafide intention in delaying the impugned First Appeal.” 4. The assessee has filed a similar affidavit in its appeal for the assessment year 2013-14. From the perusal of the impugned orders, we further find that the assessee did not comply

Rajesh Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 49(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1591/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

Tribunal despite service of notice. 4. We have heard the Department's Representative and perused the material available on record. The Assessee during the first appeal raised identical grounds of Appeal as the similar issues were involved in both the Assessment Years. The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeals

Rajesh Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle 49(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is treated as partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1590/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

Tribunal despite service of notice. 4. We have heard the Department's Representative and perused the material available on record. The Assessee during the first appeal raised identical grounds of Appeal as the similar issues were involved in both the Assessment Years. The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeals

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Marathon Finlease Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4766/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 68

premium Rs.4,04,50,000/- (vi) Additions u/s 68 for unsecured loans of Rs.13,99,70,000/-. 3. Against the said order, assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee after admitting the additional evidences filed by the assessee

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Sanjay Laddha, Indore

ITA 658/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Indore08 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

Date of Hearing | | 03.07.2025 | | | | | Date of Pronouncement | | | | 08.07.2025 | | # आदेश **/ O R D E R** ## **Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:** Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 03.07.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi ["CIT(A)"] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 17.12.2019 passed ... account of unexplained cash deposits in bank a/c made during the year. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and succeeded. Now, the revenue has come in next appeal contesting the order of first-appeal passed by CIT(A). - 3. During assessment-proceeding when the AO show-caused assessee

Income Tax Officer 2(1), Bhopal vs. Purushottam Gupta, Bhopal

ITA 278/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253

dated 20.12.2018 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.22 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has deleted the addition of Rs.3

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1 (Exemption), Chandigarh vs. Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab Technical University Bathinda, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 819/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.819/Chandi/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit-Circle -1 (Exemption) Maharaja Ranjit Singh Punjab 5Th Floor C.R. Building Technical University Bathinda बनाम/ Vs. Sector 17-D Gzs Campus, Davwali Road Chandigarh 160017 Bhatinda – 151 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaagt-0124-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरAppellant By : Sh. Abdul Kadir (Advocate). – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appealby Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 30-10-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 23-04-2021. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under.

For Appellant: Sh. Abdul Kadir (Advocate). – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 10Section 11(5)Section 143(3)

Accordingly, the impugned deduction was denied to the assessee and the income was computed at Rs.12.63 Crores. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the assessment in first appeal. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee university was formed by the State Legislature vide The Maharaja Ranjit Singh State Technical University

The Mandi Urban Coop. Bank Ltd., Mandi vs. ITO, Ward, Mandi

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 627/CHANDI/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 89(1)

closure of Tractor division of HMT Ltd. The assessee had initially offered the compensation to tax and claimed relief u/s 89(1) but during first appeal, the full amount was claimed to be exempt u/s 10(10B). However, Ld. CIT(A) did not agree with assessee’s claim for want

The Mandi Urban Coop. Bank Ltd., Mandi vs. DCIT, Circle, Mandi

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 626/CHANDI/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 89(1)

closure of Tractor division of HMT Ltd. The assessee had initially offered the compensation to tax and claimed relief u/s 89(1) but during first appeal, the full amount was claimed to be exempt u/s 10(10B). However, Ld. CIT(A) did not agree with assessee’s claim for want

The Mandi Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Mandi vs. ACIT, Circle, Mandi

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 1613/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Neelam Dhiman (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 89(1)

closure of Tractor division of HMT Ltd. The assessee had initially offered the compensation to tax and claimed relief u/s 89(1) but during first appeal, the full amount was claimed to be exempt u/s 10(10B). However, Ld. CIT(A) did not agree with assessee’s claim for want

Sh. Bhupendra Singh, Pauri Garhwal vs. ITO, Kotdwar

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

ITA 38/DDN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun07 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Bhupendra Singh Ward-1(4)(3), 82, Kesundar Pauri Vs. Kotdwar Garhwal, Uttarakhand. Chardhar-246001, Uttarakhand. Pan-Fvlps5510L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri A.S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2025

Under these circumstances and the interest of justice, we find that the assessee has sufficient cause for delay in filing in first appeal, thus, we condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). As the order of AO is also ex-parte, therefore, in the larger

Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 91/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 147Section 156Section 220(6)Section 221(1)Section 246ASection 253

Rs.10,000/- on the assessee u/s 221(1) of the Act. 2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “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 appeal of the assessee ... paid as assessment perse is a high pitched assessment. That the assessee had filed a Return of Income which was of loss. The first appeal of the assessee is pending before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR however stated that no application is filed within the meaning of Section

Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 90/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

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

Section 147Section 156Section 220(6)Section 221(1)Section 246ASection 253

Rs.10,000/- on the assessee u/s 221(1) of the Act. 2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “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 appeal of the assessee ... paid as assessment perse is a high pitched assessment. That the assessee had filed a Return of Income which was of loss. The first appeal of the assessee is pending before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR however stated that no application is filed within the meaning of Section

Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

Appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 89/IND/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

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

Section 147Section 156Section 220(6)Section 221(1)Section 246ASection 253

Rs.10,000/- on the assessee u/s 221(1) of the Act. 2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “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 appeal of the assessee ... paid as assessment perse is a high pitched assessment. That the assessee had filed a Return of Income which was of loss. The first appeal of the assessee is pending before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR however stated that no application is filed within the meaning of Section

Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

ITA 88/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

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

Section 147Section 156Section 220(6)Section 221(1)Section 246ASection 253

Rs.10,000/- on the assessee u/s 221(1) of the Act. 2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid "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 appeal of the assessee ... paid as assessment perse is a high pitched assessment. That the assessee had filed a Return of Income which was of loss. The first appeal of the assessee is pending before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR however stated that no application is filed within the meaning of Section

Jayant Security and Finance Ltd, Indore vs. ACIT Central-2, Bhopal

ITA 86/IND/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

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

Section 147Section 156Section 220Section 220(6)Section 221(1)Section 246ASection 253

Rs.10,000/- on the assessee u/s 221(1) of the Act. 2.5 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid "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 appeal of the assessee ... paid as assessment perse is a high pitched assessment. That the assessee had filed a Return of Income which was of loss. The first appeal of the assessee is pending before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR however stated that no application is filed within the meaning of Section

Morni Sarees Private Limited, Indore vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed”

ITA 910/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

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

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 36Section 43B

which is a date prior to order u/s 154 dated 24.02.2023 (supra)], the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned intimation order” had also filed “first appeal” in terms of Section 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” dated 04.12.2024 had dismissed the appeal