BHAGWAN MACHINDRA MAHADIK,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(5) PUNE, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the assessee's appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating the grounds on merit. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), which clarified that the CIT(A) is obliged under Section 250(4) and 250(6) of the Act to make further inquiries if necessary and dispose of the appeal in writing by stating points for determination and rendering a decision on each point with reasons. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) empower the CIT(A) to confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul an assessment. The Explanation to Section 251(2) further mandates the CIT(A) to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings, even if not raised by the appellant. Therefore, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution, and the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of the appeal on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Bhagwan Machindra Mahadik, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Pune-13. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2016-17 and arises from an order passed under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's grounds of appeal challenged the addition of Rs. 25,06,715 as non-agricultural income, arguing it was exempt agricultural income under Section 10(1), and the disallowance of Rs. 9,47,852 as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. The assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) contended that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance without discussing the merits. The Revenue's Departmental Representative (DR) relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer (AO) and CIT(A).
What were the issues?
1. Whether the addition of Rs. 25,06,715, treated as non-agricultural income by the AO, is contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, given that it is claimed to be exempt agricultural income under Section 10(1)? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 10(1) and Section 143(3) r.w.s 144C). 2. Whether the disallowance of Rs. 9,47,852 as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is unjustified and should be deleted? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 69C). Assessee's Contentions: - The agricultural income of Rs. 25,06,715 is exempt under Section 10(1) of the Act, and it should not have been treated as non-agricultural income. - The agricultural expenses of Rs. 9,47,852 were wrongly considered as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C, and the disallowance is unjustified. - The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance without discussing each ground and the merits of the case, and therefore, the assessee requested another opportunity to be heard. Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 10(1),Section 69C,Section 143(3),Section 144C,Section 250,Section 251,Section 246A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)659 citing297 CTR 614 · 2017 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE
Before: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA & DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE
आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-13 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2016-17 dated 24.10.2024, emanating from order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 21.12.2018. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :
1) The addition made by the L.d. AO is contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1961, as agricultural income of Rs.25,06,715 is exempt under Section 10(1) of the Act. The appellant contends that the income derived from agricultural activities should not have been treated as non-agricultural income. 2) The Ld. AO erred in considering the agricultural expenses of Rs.9,47,852 as an unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act. The disallowance made is unjustified and should be deleted. 3) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or delete any of the above grounds of the appeal.
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) : 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.
4.1 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 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.
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 03 July, 2025.
More judgments on Section 10(1)
- Sharma Dharmendra Gorakhnath HUF, Shrirampur vs ITO WD 2 Ahmednahar, ITO AhmednagarITA 1156/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Prafulldan Motising Gadhvi, Ahmedabad vs ITO Ward 4(2)(1) Ahmedabad, Pratyaksha Kar…ITA 2589/AHD/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Pramod Dwivedi, Raipur vs ITO, Ward-1(2), RaipurITA 597/RPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sukhveer Singh Dhilow, Ashoknagar vs Income Tax Officer, Ashok NagarITA 373/AGR/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
- Yeddula Venkata Narayana Reddy, Bellary vs ITO, Ward1 & Tps, HospetITA 415/BANG/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026