APPASAHEB LIMBAJI SUKASE,GANGAPUR AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AURANGABAD

ITA 2311/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 September 2026AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) was not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution and was obligated to decide the appeal on its merits, as per Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), which categorically states that the Ld. CIT(A) must dispose of an appeal in writing, stating the points for determination and rendering a decision on each point with reasons. The Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal without discussing the merits of the case, which is contrary to the statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, with a direction to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, did not file a return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16. Information indicated cash deposits and receipt of commission/brokerage. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with a notice under Section 148 issued on April 7, 2022. The assessee filed a return on March 9, 2024. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment under Section 147 on March 19, 2024, making additions of Rs. 15,61,290 under Section 69A for unexplained money and Rs. 3,55,111 for unexplained money, assessing total income at Rs. 20,32,601. The assessee appealed to the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)], who confirmed the AO's order. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). There was a delay of 220 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal for non-compliance, without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits, as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) to support the contention that the Ld. CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide it on merits. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue regarding the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. However, the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, as reproduced, indicates that the assessee failed to file replies to several notices, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the AO's approach and additions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 69A,Section 250,Section 250(6),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, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

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

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh D. Khivansara, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Kumar Verma, JCIT

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 2015-16 on 26.07.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 of the Act, dated 19.03.2024. 2. There was a delay of 220 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 belat

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 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →