SUHAS MARUTI DHANKUDE,PUNE vs. JCIT (OSD)- CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4) PUNE, PUNE

ITA No 1060 & 1061/PUN/2024; 5.1 In response to notice u/s 153C of the Act the assessee filed returns declaring total income of ₹2,93,294/- for AY 2017-18 and ₹2,96,750/- for AY 2018-19 respectively. These returns were also subjected to scrutiny and assessments in these cases were also completed u/s 144 r.w.s. 153C by making certain additions towards (a) unaccounted/undisclosed rental income from Mangal Karyalaya (Heera Garden) (b)

Aggrieved assessee came before us in separate appeals challenging the adjudications of first appellate authority on various grounds which are argumentative in nature and inconsonance with rule 8 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 hence reproduction thereof deem unfit for the purpose of adjudications. However it shall suffice to state that, these grounds collective are directed against;(a) non-adjudication of legal ground raised challenging the very jurisdiction of Ld. AO in invoking proceedings u/s 153C of the Act and(b)challenging the assessment/re-assessment on merits of the case/s etc.

At the outset of physical hearing, the rival parties sought our attention to the impugned consolidated order and commonly submitted that the legal ground raised before first appeal challenging the very jurisdiction of assessing the income of the assessee u/s 144 r.w.s. 153C of the Act was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) without adjudication. Therefore, the impugned consolidate order is suffered from the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. For the reasons, the assessee without touching the merits of the case sought to remand these matters back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 6

Heard rival parties on former limited issue and subject to rule 18 of ITAT- Rules 1963 perused material placed on record and considered the fact & circumstances of these cases in the light of settled legal position and case laws relied upon by rival parties. From Pg 6/40 para 3, Page 11/40 para 9, Pg 34/40 para 34, and para 41 of Pg 38/40 of the impugned consolidated order we observed that, the legal grounds assailed challenging the jurisdiction to assess/re-assess income u/s 153C of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed as general without adjudicating it in terms of s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act. Besides above we also note that, while adjudicating the grounds on merits, the Ld. CIT(A) did perfunctorily disposed-off the appeals of the appellant assessee without recording his independent findings.

Dispensing reproduction of provision in verbatim, we note here that, a plain reading of section 250 of the Act reveals that, in first appellate proceedings it is incumbent upon the Ld. CIT(A); (i) to make necessary enquiries (ii) to deal with each issue under challenge on merits and (iii) to decide the grievance under appeal by a well speaking order by stating therein (a) point of his determination, (b) decision arrived thereon and (c) clear reasons therefore. A conjoint reading of s/s (4) r.w.s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act further unveils that the Ld. CIT(A) while exercising his jurisdiction u/s 251(1)(a) of the Act is in no case empowered to dismiss any ground without dealing with it in former terms.

It is a trite law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case ‘Chandra Kishore Jha Vs Mahavir Prasad’ reported in 8 SCC 266 (SC), that ‘if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner’. In view hereof, any adjudication by the first appellate authority sidestepping the dictate is not in consonance with the provision of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act. Hence deserves to be set-aside.

In the instance cases, the impugned consolidated order since suffered from the provisions of s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act on account of (a) non-adjudication of legal ground/s raised by assessee and (b) failure to state point of determination, decision thereon and reasoning in arriving such decision, we therefore deem it proper to set-aside the impugned consolidated order and remand these matters back to the file first appellate authority in faceless regime with a direction to adjudicate them de- novo in accordance with law and pass assessment year-wise separate speaking orders in terms of section 250(6) of the Act separately in each case. We ordered accordingly.

In result these four appeals of the assessee are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES in above terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Thursday, 01st August, 2024.