VINAY KUMAR AGRAWAL,RAIPUR (C.G.) vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 351/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 May 2026AY 2022-235 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to adjudicate appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution, citing a Bombay High Court judgment. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside for de-novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to file details despite multiple opportunities. The assessee requested another opportunity, which the Revenue did not object to.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, or if they are required to adjudicate the appeal on its merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 251(1)(a),Section 251(1)(b),Section 251(2),Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “DB”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ch. Rajeswara Reddy, DR
Hearing: 15.05.2026Pronounced: 15.05.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23 on

ITA No. 351/RPR/2026 Vinay Kumar Agrawal 03.02.2026 emanating from assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 02.03.2024.

2.

Ld. AR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits as the assessee could not file details. Ld. AR requested that one more opportunity may be provided.

3.

Ld. DR had not objected to the request of Ld. AR. 4. In this case, Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal. The relevant paragraph of the Ld. CIT(A)’s order is as under: “During the appeal proceedings, The appeal was fixed for hearing as under-

S.No. Notice u/s Notice date issued Assessco Hearing fixed reply

1.

u/s 250 26.09.2025 13.10.2025 No reply filed

2 u/s 250 24.10.2025 Assessee 28.10,2025 filed adjournment

3.

u/s 250 22.12.2025 26.12.2025 No reply filed

It is quite evident from the chronology of event that despite several opportunities being granted from time to time, there has been absolutely no compliance on part of the appellant to give detailed explanation regarding ground of appeal taken for A.Y. 2022-23, the appellant has shown that he is not interested in pursuing the appeal.

ITA No. 351/RPR/2026 Vinay Kumar Agrawal The laws aid those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. Under these circumstances, in my opinion the appellant is not interested in the appeal. In view of these facts, the appeal of the appellant deserves to be dismissed as it cannot be kept pending adjudication for indefinite period. It is the duty of the appellant to make necessary arrangements for effective representation on the appointed date. Mere filing of an appeal is not enough, rather it requires effective hearing also. Therefore, the appeal is found liable for dismissal”

5.

Thus, it can be observed that Ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. As per section 250 of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) has to adjudicate each and every ground raised by the assessee.

6.

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) as under : “8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct 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

ITA No. 351/RPR/2026 Vinay Kumar Agrawal 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.”.

7.

Thus, Hon’ble Bombay High Court has categorically held that CIT(A) has to decide the appeal on merit and CIT(A) does not have any power to dismiss appeal for non-prosecution.

ITA No. 351/RPR/2026 Vinay Kumar Agrawal 8. Accordingly, the order under section 250 is set aside to Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary details before Ld. CIT(A). 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 15th day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

रायपुर / Raipur; िदनांक / Dated : 15 May, 2026. HKS, PS

आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 4. रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Hem Kumari Digitally signed by //True copy// Hem Kumari Shrivastava, Shrivastava, PS, ITAT, PS, ITAT, Raipur Date: 2026.05.15 // True Copy // Private Secretary, Raipur 17:32:41 +05'30' आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur.

More judgments on Section 251(1)(a)

All 935 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251(1)(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →