VIVEK RAMRAO PARASKAR,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER 32(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, as per the Bombay High Court ruling, and that the appeal should have been decided on its merits. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order dismissing their appeal against the assessment order. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear or provide submissions despite opportunities. The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution instead of adjudicating on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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 citing240 Taxmann 133 · 2017 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, F” BENCH, MUMBAI
आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. आयकर आयु�/ The CIT �धान आयकर आयु� / Pr.CIT 4. 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�ािपत �ित //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai Assessment Year: 2017-2018
Sr. No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Typed/Dictated directly on PC Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft Placed before author Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before JM/AM the Second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by JM/AM Second Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6 Order pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 8 Date on which the file goes to the Head clerk 9 Date on which file goes to the AR 10 Date of Dispatch of order
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Leena Shankar Shetakr, Mumbai vs ITO, 15(3)(1), MumbaiMumbai16 Jan 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause. Relying on a Bombay High Court judgment, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The CIT(A)'s order w...
- Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Pune vs DCIT, Circle 7, PunePune13 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 268 days for the appeal before it, noting the circumstances and the Supreme Court's liberal approach. It also found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicati...
- Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Pune vs DCIT, Circle 7, PunePune13 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 268 days in filing the appeals, finding that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. T...
- M/S Kubera Dal & Besan Millsz, Pune vs CIT Circle- 5, PunePune23 Dec 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide the appeal on its merits. The High Court's decision in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra was cited as pr...
- Bharati Nimba Patil, Nashik vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, DelhiPune15 Dec 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the ex-parte nature of the orders passed by the AO and CIT(A)/NFAC due to non-compliance with notices sent to incorrect email addresses, the Tribunal set ...
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
