ANWAR HUSAIN MEHBOOB SHAIKH,JALGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALGAON
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE
BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.2561/PUN/2025
निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19
Anwar
Husain
Mehboob
Shaikh,
H. No.K 258/I Railway
North
Area,
Bhusawal,
Jalgaon – 425201. V s
The Income Tax Officer,
Jalgaon.
PAN: BODPS9742F
Appellant/ Assessee
Respondent / Revenue
Assessee by None
Revenue by Shri Sandeep Sathe - DR
Date of hearing
10/12/2025
Date of pronouncement 12/12/2025
आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2018-19 dated
21.08.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, dated 31.01.2024. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
ITA No.2561/PUN/2025 [A]
2
“1. That the notice under section 148 of the Act for the reassessment of income for the AY 2018-19 was wrongly issued by the Juri ictional
Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Assessing Officer.
That the Juri ictional AO has excess is authority by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act.
That the notice issued under section 148 violates the section 151A and 1448 of the Act and is bad in law and hence the complete re- assessment proceedings need to be quashed.
That the impugned order is arbitrary and bad in law in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence.
On the facts and in law, the learned AO has inadvertently made the addition to the income of the appellant amounting to INR 10,56,780/-
The total tax liability computed by the Juri ictional AO is not in correspondence with the addition to the income of the appellant.
Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.”
At the outset of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. A letter from Mohsin Hada dated Nil requesting for adjournment was filed by Email. It is noticed that there is no letter of authority or power of attorney duly signed by Assessee and Mohsin Hada on record.
1 Therefore, the letter filed by Mohsin Hada has not been considered by the Bench.
ITA No.2561/PUN/2025 [A]
3
Findings & Analysis :
We have heard ld.DR for the Revenue and perused the records. In this case, ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as assessee failed to file any reply to three notices issued by ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds raised by the Assessee some of which are legal grounds.
The grounds of appeal raise by the Assessee before the ld.CIT(A) as per Form No.35 are as under : “Aggrieved by the order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 read with section 144B of the Act dated 31.01.2024 for A.Y. 2018-19, the appellant filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with the following grounds of appeal.
That the notice under section 148 of the Act for the reassessment of income for the AY 2018-19 was wrongly issued by by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer instead of Faceless Assessing Officer.
That the Juri ictional AO has under section 148 of the Act. Excess is authority by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act.
That the notice issued under section 148 violates the section 151A and 144B of the Act and is bad in law and hence the complete re- assessment proceedings need to be quashed.
That the impugned order is arbitrary and bad in law in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence.
On the facts and in law, the learned AO has inadvertently made the addition to the income of the appellant amounting to INR 10,56,780/-
ITA No.2561/PUN/2025 [A]
4
6. Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.”
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.
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
ITA No.2561/PUN/2025 [A]
5
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.
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.
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.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12 December, 2025. VINAY BHAMORE
Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE
JUDICIAL MEMBER
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पपणे / Pune; ददिधंक / Dated : 12 Dec, 2025/ SGR
ITA No.2561/PUN/2025 [A]
आदेशकीप्रनिनलनपअग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपऩलधर्थी / The Appellant.
2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A), concerned.
4. The Pr. CIT, concerned.
5. नवभधगऩयप्रनिनिनर्, आयकर अपऩलऩय अनर्करण, “एस एम सऩ” बेंच,
पपणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune.
6. गधर्ाफ़धइल / Guard File.
आदेशधिपसधर / BY ORDER,
/ // /
Senior Private Secretary
आयकर अपऩलऩय अनर्करण, पपणे/ITAT, Pune.