PRIYANKA SACHIN VISHWAKRMA,PUNE vs. THE ITO WARD 8(3), PUNE

आदेश /ORDER

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M :

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for AY 2018-19 on 09.02.2026, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 28.03.2024.

Findings and analysis:

ITA No. 2045/PUN/2026

discussing the merits of the case. The relevant paragraph reads as under : “In the appeal proceedings the appellant has miserably failed to file any compliance; neither the appellant nor his authorised representative has made either any written submissionor filed any adjournment letter/ petition. Therefore the appellant miserably failed to substantiate the grounds taken by him with the supporting documents .This indicates the appellant is not willing to pursue her appeal .In view of above, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the AO and resultantly, I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order of the AO dated 28-03-2024 is based on apropos consideration of facts and law and hence the same does not warrant interference in as much as the appellant being unable to discharge onus of proving the source of cash and credit deposit in the said bank in the year under consideration. Therefore I am of opinion that AO's decision of determining total income after making addition Rs. 1,06,92,427/- under section 69A of the Act is justified and in accordance with law. Accordingly impugned addition stand confirmed. The grounds in this regard are dismissed. Decision: I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant in form No. 35, perused the materials on record and carefully gone through the order of the AO passed u/s 143(3) of the I.T Act 1961 dated 28-03-2024. The grounds relating to initiation of penalty u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A, 271AAC (1), and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, all are incidental to underreporting and misreporting of income and non compliance on the part of the appellant, being mandatory in nature, resultantly required no separate adjudication and hence dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.”

2.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the grounds of appeal which is mandatory u/s 250(6) of the Act.

ITA No. 2045/PUN/2026

the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 251 of the Act also makes it clear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an assessee files an appeal under Section 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact with effect from 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restore it to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) is coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer i.e. he can do all that Assessing Officer could do. Therefore just as it is not open to the Assessing Officer to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.” Unquote.

ITA No. 2045/PUN/2026

Order pronounced in the open Court on 14th August, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 14-08-2026 Ravi Kumar Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.08.14 15:08:49 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, „B‟ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण,पुणे / ITAT, Pune