VIJAY MOTILAL BHANSALI,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 8, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1465/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 July 2025AY 2015-16Bench: DR.MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without discussing the merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal afforded one more opportunity to the assessee by remitting the issues to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2015-16 was directed against an order of the NFAC which arose out of an assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The assessee's counsel requested that the matter be restored to the file of the CIT(A) as the assessee could not file details before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication when it was dismissed for non-prosecution, and whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Jain
For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Hearing: 14.07.2025Pronounced: 22.07.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BOARD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 is directed against the order dated 17.04.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 23.12.2017 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act.

2.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested that the assessee was not able to file details before ld.CIT(A) and therefore prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication afresh.

3.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that ld.CIT(A) has given various opportunities to the assessee to file submissions, however, on majority of the dates of hearing assessee sought adjournment but did not file any submissions in support of its grounds of appeal against the additions made by ld. Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2015-16 towards unexplained cash credit and disallowance of interest expenditure. We further observe that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal merely on account of non-prosecution and has not discussed on merits of the case.

4.

Under these given facts and circumstances and considering the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, we in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, deem it proper to afford one more opportunity to the assessee and remit the all the issues raised before us to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the respondent-assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). Assessee is directed to update email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assesssee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 22nd day of July, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →