M/S. UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

2 M/s.Unijule Life Sciences Ltd., [A] 8) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment being a case of unabated assessment, the additions to the extent not emanated from incriminating material found during the course of search are illegal and which deserves to be deleted as per law.” Findings & Analysis : 2. In this case, it is observed that the ld.CIT(A) vide its order dated 08.11.2021 has dismissed appeal of the assessee as under were hereby reproduced the order of ld.CIT(A) in para 3.4 as under : “3.4 I find that the AO has given adequate justification by passing an order u/s. 154 of the Act, 1961. On the other hand, the appellant has not made any submission to rebut the findings given by the AO. Accordingly, the matter is being decided on the basis of material on record and the grounds of appeal are dismissed.”

2.1 Thus, it can be observed that the ld.CIT(A) has not discussed any of the grounds raised by the assessee and averments made by the assessee. On perusal of the Form-35, which has been attached by the assessee along with appeal memo, the grounds of appeal raised before the ld.CIT(A) were as under : “1) The learned AO erred in stating that the purchases made from M/s Anjanya Biotech Pvt. Ltd to be bogus purchases vide its 3. M/s.Unijule Life Sciences Ltd., [A]

order passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) dated 30.03.2016. for the year under consideration.

2) Cash expenses have been added on the basis of document found at the time of search and seizure.

3) Depreciation disallowed.

4) Any other additional point can be taken at any later point of time.”

2.2 Thus, the assessee had made certain averments in the grounds of appeal and in the statement of facts filed before the ld.CIT(A0. Assessee had also relied on certain case laws. However, the ld.CIT(A) has not bothered to discuss any of the averments or specific grounds raised by the assessee and merely dismissed the appeal for non-compliance.

3. 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.

4 M/s.Unijule Life Sciences Ltd., [A] 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 5 M/s.Unijule Life Sciences Ltd., [A] empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.” Unquote.