YAZAKI CORPORATION,JAPAN vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAX) CIRCLE - 2, PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITITA 487/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 April 2026AY 2023-244 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide an appeal on merit and does not possess the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. Citing the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the Tribunal emphasized that Section 250(4) and 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, mandate the CIT(A) to make further inquiries if necessary and dispose of the appeal in writing, stating points for determination and rendering decisions on each point with reasons. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) grant powers to confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul an assessment/penalty, and the Explanation to Section 251(2) allows consideration of any issue arising in the proceedings. Therefore, the CIT(A) must apply their mind to all issues, and dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution is not permitted. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for denovo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity to the assessee and for the assessee to file necessary documents. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Yazaki Corporation, filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Pune, for Assessment Year 2023-24. The assessee's authorized representative contended that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits of each ground and solely for non-compliance, requesting another opportunity to be heard. The Revenue's representative relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the grounds of appeal on merit but had dismissed the appeal for non-compliance, failing to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) is obliged to decide an appeal on merit, even if the assessee fails to prosecute it properly? - Assessee's contention: The appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) without discussing each ground and the merits of the case, solely for non-compliance, and therefore, the assessee requested one more opportunity to be heard. - Revenue's contention: The Revenue relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). 2. Whether the CIT(A) has the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution? - Assessee's contention: Implicit in the request for another opportunity, arguing that the CIT(A) should have considered the merits. - Revenue's contention: The Revenue relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 251,Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “C”, PUNE

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

For Appellant: Ms. Riddhi Maru (Virtual)
For Respondent: Shri Santosh Mankoskar
Hearing: 28.04.2026Pronounced: 29.04.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assesse pertaining to A.Y. 2023-24 is directed against the order framed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Pune passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 dated 19.11.2025 Submission of ld.AR : 2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) without discussing each and every ground and merits of the case and merely dismissed for non-compliance. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) :

IT(IT)A No. 487/Pun/2026, Yazaki Corporation 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC].

Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is observed from the order of the ld.CIT(A) that the ld.CIT(A) did not decide the grounds of appeal on merit but merely dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance. The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits.

5.

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 :

Quote, “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 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.

IT(IT)A No. 487/Pun/2026, Yazaki Corporation 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. 5.1 Thus, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has categorically held that ld.CIT(A) has to decide the appeal on merit and ld.CIT(A) does not have any power to dismiss appeal for non- prosecution.

6.

In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we set-aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on this 29th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated :29 April, 2026. KRK, Sr. PS

IT(IT)A No. 487/Pun/2026, Yazaki Corporation

आिेश की प्रदिदिदप अग्रेदिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीि र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि , आयकर अपीिीय अदिकरण, “C” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “C” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इि / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

// True Copy // Assistant Registrar, आयकर अपीिीय अदिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

More judgments on Section 251

All 1,124 judgments and leading authorities on Section 251 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →