URUN VIVIDH KARYAKARI VIKAS SOCIETY,WALWA vs. ITO WD-5, SANGLI

ITA 472/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 September 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Urun Vividh Karyakari Vikas Society Ltd., filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi. This order was passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2019-20, stemming from an Assessment Order under sections 147 read with 144 of the Act. There was a delay of 183 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, which was condoned. The Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal without adjudicating on the merits of the case, citing the assessee's failure to file replies to various notices and attend hearings. The ITAT noted that none appeared on behalf of the assessee during the hearing.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Learned CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal referred to Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which mandates that the CIT(A) must dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and rendering a decision on each point with reasons. The Tribunal also relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), which categorically held that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of an appeal on merits and does not have the power to dismiss it for non-prosecution. The reasoning is that the CIT(A)'s powers are coterminous with the Assessing Officer, and just as an Assessing Officer cannot refuse to complete an assessment, a CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. Consequently, the order of the Learned CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Learned CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, without adjudicating on the merits of the case, as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The assessee, through its absence, did not present arguments. The revenue, represented by Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl. CIT, did not present arguments. The ITAT, however, analyzed the order of the Learned CIT(A) and the relevant legal provisions. The Learned CIT(A) relied on decisions in CIT vs B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another, Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs CWT, Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd., and the maxim 'vigilantibus non dormientibus, jura subveniunt' to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The ITAT also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 251

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl. CIT

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 2019-20 on 22.05.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 02.01.2024. 2. There was a delay of 183 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. We have perused the affidavit and convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay. Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. No assessee is going to gain by filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, delay condoned.

2 Fin

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →