← 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Saravana Stores Tex, Chennai

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 292/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3243/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3244/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3245/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3246/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3247/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3248/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3249/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 8.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3250/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Saravana Stores Tex Dcit बनाम/ # 42-45, Ranganathan Street, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 4

total income of the assessee as unaccounted business income and the impugned assessment was framed which was subjected to assessee’s further challenge in first appeal. 2.7 Similar assessments were framed for AY 2016-17 & 2017-18. In AY 2018-19, Ld. AO did not even allow the benefit ... separate orders on similar lines. The adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) has led to present cross-appeals before us. The core issue in the first appeal was qua entries of receipts and payments as found noted in the seized notebooks. Appellate proceedings 3.1 The assessee contended that the entries were

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Saravana Stores Tex, Chennai

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 291/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3243/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3244/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3245/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3246/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3247/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3248/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3249/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 8.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3250/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Saravana Stores Tex Dcit बनाम/ # 42-45, Ranganathan Street, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 4

total income of the assessee as unaccounted business income and the impugned assessment was framed which was subjected to assessee’s further challenge in first appeal. 2.7 Similar assessments were framed for AY 2016-17 & 2017-18. In AY 2018-19, Ld. AO did not even allow the benefit ... separate orders on similar lines. The adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) has led to present cross-appeals before us. The core issue in the first appeal was qua entries of receipts and payments as found noted in the seized notebooks. Appellate proceedings 3.1 The assessee contended that the entries were

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Saravana Stores Tex, Chennai

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 290/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3243/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3244/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3245/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3246/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3247/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3248/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3249/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 8.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3250/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Saravana Stores Tex Dcit बनाम/ # 42-45, Ranganathan Street, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 4

total income of the assessee as unaccounted business income and the impugned assessment was framed which was subjected to assessee’s further challenge in first appeal. 2.7 Similar assessments were framed for AY 2016-17 & 2017-18. In AY 2018-19, Ld. AO did not even allow the benefit ... separate orders on similar lines. The adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) has led to present cross-appeals before us. The core issue in the first appeal was qua entries of receipts and payments as found noted in the seized notebooks. Appellate proceedings 3.1 The assessee contended that the entries were

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Saravana Stores Tex, Chennai

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 289/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3243/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3244/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3245/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3246/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3247/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3248/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3249/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 8.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3250/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Saravana Stores Tex Dcit बनाम/ # 42-45, Ranganathan Street, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 4

total income of the assessee as unaccounted business income and the impugned assessment was framed which was subjected to assessee’s further challenge in first appeal. 2.7 Similar assessments were framed for AY 2016-17 & 2017-18. In AY 2018-19, Ld. AO did not even allow the benefit ... separate orders on similar lines. The adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) has led to present cross-appeals before us. The core issue in the first appeal was qua entries of receipts and payments as found noted in the seized notebooks. Appellate proceedings 3.1 The assessee contended that the entries were

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Saravana Stores Tex, Chennai

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 288/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3243/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3244/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3245/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3246/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3247/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3248/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3249/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 8.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3250/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Saravana Stores Tex Dcit बनाम/ # 42-45, Ranganathan Street, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 4

total income of the assessee as unaccounted business income and the impugned assessment was framed which was subjected to assessee’s further challenge in first appeal. 2.7 Similar assessments were framed for AY 2016-17 & 2017-18. In AY 2018-19, Ld. AO did not even allow the benefit ... separate orders on similar lines. The adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) has led to present cross-appeals before us. The core issue in the first appeal was qua entries of receipts and payments as found noted in the seized notebooks. Appellate proceedings 3.1 The assessee contended that the entries were

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Saravana Stores Tex, Chennai

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 287/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3243/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3244/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3245/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3246/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3247/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3248/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3249/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 8.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3250/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Saravana Stores Tex Dcit बनाम/ # 42-45, Ranganathan Street, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 4

total income of the assessee as unaccounted business income and the impugned assessment was framed which was subjected to assessee’s further challenge in first appeal. 2.7 Similar assessments were framed for AY 2016-17 & 2017-18. In AY 2018-19, Ld. AO did not even allow the benefit ... separate orders on similar lines. The adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) has led to present cross-appeals before us. The core issue in the first appeal was qua entries of receipts and payments as found noted in the seized notebooks. Appellate proceedings 3.1 The assessee contended that the entries were

Saravana Stores Tex, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-192), Chennai

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 3250/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3243/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3244/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3245/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3246/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3247/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3248/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3249/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 8.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3250/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Saravana Stores Tex Dcit बनाम/ # 42-45, Ranganathan Street, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 4

total income of the assessee as unaccounted business income and the impugned assessment was framed which was subjected to assessee’s further challenge in first appeal. 2.7 Similar assessments were framed for AY 2016-17 & 2017-18. In AY 2018-19, Ld. AO did not even allow the benefit ... separate orders on similar lines. The adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) has led to present cross-appeals before us. The core issue in the first appeal was qua entries of receipts and payments as found noted in the seized notebooks. Appellate proceedings 3.1 The assessee contended that the entries were

Saravana Stores Tex, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

The appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 3249/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3243/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3244/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3245/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3246/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3247/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2019-20) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3248/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3249/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2021-22) & 8.आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.3250/Chny/2024 (िनधा'रण वष' / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Saravana Stores Tex Dcit बनाम/ # 42-45, Ranganathan Street, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 4

total income of the assessee as unaccounted business income and the impugned assessment was framed which was subjected to assessee’s further challenge in first appeal. 2.7 Similar assessments were framed for AY 2016-17 & 2017-18. In AY 2018-19, Ld. AO did not even allow the benefit ... separate orders on similar lines. The adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) has led to present cross-appeals before us. The core issue in the first appeal was qua entries of receipts and payments as found noted in the seized notebooks. Appellate proceedings 3.1 The assessee contended that the entries were