JITENDRA MANJI MADAT,KHARGHAR NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

ITA 936/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 October 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide an appeal on its merits and does not possess the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. This conclusion is based on the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF). The High Court's ruling emphasizes that Section 250(4) and 250(6) of the Act require the CIT(A) to make further inquiries if necessary and dispose of the appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and providing reasons. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) grant the CIT(A) broad powers to confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul an assessment. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal solely due to the assessee's non-compliance without examining the substantive issues. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jintendra Manji Madat, an individual, filed a return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21 declaring a total income of Rs. 4,56,059. The case was reopened under Section 148A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and reassessment proceedings were finalized by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Sections 147, 144, and 144B. The AO made an addition of Rs. 17,25,000 on account of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. The assessee appealed this order to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). During the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) issued multiple notices for hearing, but the assessee failed to file a reply. Consequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on the merits of the case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, without deciding the merits of the case, under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contention: The assessee, through their Learned AR, requested to set aside the order of the CIT(A) and assured to file all necessary details before the CIT(A). The assessee implicitly argued that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue. However, the CIT(A)'s order of dismissal for non-compliance indicates the Revenue's position that the assessee's failure to comply warranted dismissal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148A,Section 250,Section 251,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 Dinkle Hariya (virtual)
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 2020-21 on 19.12.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 18.02.2025. Findings and Analysis:

2.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, the assessee is an individual and filed return of income on 27.03.2021 declaring total income of Rs.4,56,059/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Then, the case of the assessee was reopened as per the procedure prescribed

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 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →