ASHITKUMAR GANESH PORIA,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Ashitkumar Ganesh Poria, V The Dy.CIT(Central), 931, Raviwar Peth, Huseni s Circle-2(1), Pune. Trust, Near Dagadi Nagoba, Pune – 411002. Maharashtra. PAN: AISPP7097C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri T.S.Shelke – AR Revenue by Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 15/05/2025 Date of pronouncement 15/05/2025 आदेश/ ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1. During the preceding before CIT Appeal, the appellant has requested time for preparation of submission and explain the Disputed issue vide letter dated 28.01.2025, Acknowledgement

845803531280125 but the CIT appeal has not considered in dismissed order, and therefore passed order is unjustified under principal of natural justice, may be justified. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-12 has unjustified dismissed appeal and confirmed the addition as under. 2.1) Addition on account of un-explained investment, Rs.25,00,000/- 2.2) Addition on account of making charges on Gold, Rs.4,82,991/- The same please may be verified and justified accordingly. Any other grounds of Appeal i.e.additions, Modification, deletion, please may be permitted at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Submission of ld.AR : Ld.AR submitted that Assessee had filed an adjournment petition with reference to the hearing scheduled on 28.01.2025. Ld.AR filed copy of the acknowledgment generated on e-proceedings of the Income Tax Website. Ld.AR submitted that ld.CIT(A) without considering the adjournment petition filed by the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance.

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 that ld.CIT(A) had scheduled the hearing on 28.01.2025.

It is noted that assessee had requested for an adjournment, however, ld.CIT(A) without rejecting the adjournment petition, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 29.01.2025. Ld.CIT(A) has not discussed the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merit.

4.1 It is observed from the order of the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] that the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] did not decide the grounds of appeal on merit, but merely dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non- compliance.

4.2 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.