CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)

297 CTR 614High Court2017#86 most cited

What is CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) authority for?

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

659

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF · Section 250(6) Income Tax Act · CIT(A) appeal dismissal · non-prosecution of appeal · default in appearance appeal · ex parte order merits · duty to decide on merits · Bombay High Court 297 CTR 614

Also reported as

240 Taxmann 133

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 147Section 246ASection 251(1)(b)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 251(2)section 251(1)(a)section 250(4)section 251(1)section 246asection 246section 251section 250(6)section 249(3)section 24non-speaking orderspeaking order

Judgments citing CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)

Ashok Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Wrd-1, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 271/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prathik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 250Section 270Section 271(1)(c)

…opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Ashok Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). Assessee is directed to update email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned orders are set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this bunch of appeals are allowed for statistical…

Ashok Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA

ITA 270/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Prathik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 250Section 270Section 271(1)(c)

…opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Ashok Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). Assessee is directed to update email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned orders are set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this bunch of appeals are allowed for statistical…

Shakil Ahemad Ansari, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 186/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Raipur22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.186/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shakil Ahmed Ansari, Takiya Para, Durg (C.G)- 491 001 Pan: Aoapa5172R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

…mandate of law the CIT(Appeals) is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). In the aforementioned case the Hon’ble High Court had observed as under: "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 AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the sam…

Sujata Mahendra Nawander, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 3, Jalna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1568/PUN/2025[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1568/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sujata Mahendra Nawander, V The Income Tax Officer, 19, Manmohan Vidya Nagar, S Ward-3, Jalna. Mantha Road, Jalna-431203. Maharashtra. Pan: Aeppn7756M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Harshit S Kabra – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 271(1)

…dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance. The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits. 5. 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 t…

Babusingh Bhimsingh Rajpurohit, Pune vs. I, T.O Ward-9(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1479/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1479/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Babusingh Bhimsingh V The Income Tax Officer, Rajpurohit, S Ward-9(3), Pune. Srv No.13, Op.Santosh Mangal Karyalaya, Near 16 No.Bus Stop, Thergaon, Pune – 411033. Mahrashtra. Pan: Aarpr6622G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025

Section 144Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

…IT(A) has dismissed assessee’s appeal in limine for lack of appearance in the course of appeal proceedings. ITA No.1479/PUN/2025 [A] 5. 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 t…

Vijay Motilal Bhansali, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 8, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assesssee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1465/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

…hall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the respondent-assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). Assessee is directed to update email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 3 Vijay Motilal…

Poladpur Taluka Prathamik Shikshak Sahkari Patphedhi Maryadit Poladpur Shik, Poladpur, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Panvel

In the result, appeal of the assesssee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1457/PUN/2025[2016 - 17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1457/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poladpur Taluka Prathamik Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shikshak Sahkari Patphedhi Ward-2, Panvel Maryadit Poladpur Shik, Samarth Nagar, Sawantkond Road, Behind Hotel Matoshree, Mumbai-Goa Highway, Poladpur S.O. Poladpur, Raigarh – 402 303, Maharashtra PAN : AACTP7232M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Respondent by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date of hearing : 14.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 22.07.2025…

Shakeel Abdul Azeez Mohammad, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jalgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1115/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1115/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shakeel Abdul Azeez V The Income Tax Officer, Mohammad, S Ward-1(1), Jalgaon. Kachchi Chawl, Indira Nagar, Shahu Nagar, Jalgaon-425001. Maharashtra. Pan: Byfpm1596K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Vinay V Kawdia – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 69A

…[A] 6. The Ground No.1 raised before ld.CIT(A) is a legal ground. Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds raised by the assessee. 7. 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 t…

Kolan Vanaja, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 297/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

…view that the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of the appeal based on a speaking order despite the non- participation by the assessee is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). In the aforementioned case the Hon'ble High Court had observed as under: "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 6 Kolan Vanaja the AO to make further inquiry and report the r…

Rakesh Pandey, Baloda Bazar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara, Bhatapar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 314/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.314/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rakesh Pandey 274, Sadar Lane, Mahamaya Chowk Lawan, Bhatapara-493 626 Pan: Ajgpp8840C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Bhatapara (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Paveen Goyal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

…andate of law the CIT(Appeals) is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution. The aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). In the aforementioned case the Hon’ble High Court had observed as under: "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 AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the sam…

Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 382/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11(5)

…1 ITA NO. 381 & 382/JPR/2025 RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1, JAIPUR आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 381 & 382/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide cuke The ITO (Exemption) Vs. Near Pareek College, Banipark Ward-1, Jaipur 302 016 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAL…

Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Holding Charge of ITO Exemptions, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 381/JPR/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 11(5)

…1 ITA NO. 381 & 382/JPR/2025 RAJASTHAN STATE BHARAT SCOUT AND GUIDE VS ITO (EXEMPTION), WARD -1, JAIPUR आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुरन्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,’’SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihyla-@ITA No. 381 & 382/JPR/2025 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2010-11 & 2011-12 Rajasthan State Bharat Scout and Guide cuke The ITO (Exemption) Vs. Near Pareek College, Banipark Ward-1, Jaipur 302 016 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAL…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Circle, Pune vs. Swami Shanti Prakash Ashram Trust, Thane

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1488/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

…ts and circumstances, ld. CIT(A) ought to have dealt with merits of the case by passing a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). Since ld.CIT(A) has not adhered to the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, we deem it proper to restore the issues to the file of 3 Swami Shanti Prakash Ashram Trust ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to t…

Ratilal Karmshi Patel, Satara vs. ITO Ward 1, Satara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1399/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1399/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ratilal Karmshi Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, D-70, Midc, Taswade, S. Ward-1, Satara. Umbraj, Taluka Karad, District Satara – 415109. Maharashtra. Pan: Abppp6230R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Aditya Ramchandran – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.03.2025 For A.Y.2022-23, Emanating From The Order U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

…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 t…

Umaravati, Ghazipur vs. ITO Ambikapur, Ambikapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 393/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.393/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Umrawati, W/O Lt. Harishankar, Village & Post Goshalpur, Distt. Ghazipur, Village & Post Goshalpur, 233228, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Agdpu2867Q .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 250

…rder and copy of demand notice. By the time assessee procured the same there was a delay of 122 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. As per the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom), the Hon’ble High Court has held that every appellate authority shall have to deal with the merits of the matter and not dismiss the appeal in limine in summary manner. That, further, it is observed also the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not brought out any cogent reason for not accepting the condonation petition filed by the assessee nor has conduct…

Chandrakant Pandurang Kharat, Panvel vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1535/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: Smt Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

…sessee and after considering the submissions/evidences filed by the assessee shall pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). Assessee is directed to update email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order 3 Chandrakant Pandurang Kharat is set aside and the effective ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statisti…

Ma Chimanraoji Kadam Gr Bigar Seti Sah Path Mar Saswad, Satara vs. ITO, Ward-3, Satara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2494/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

…sessee and after considering the submissions/evidences filed by the assessee shall pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). Assessee is directed to inform/update latest email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the asse…

Ashok Damodhar Gholap, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2074/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2074/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ashok Damodhar Gholap Vs. Income Tax Officer, 6 Everest Housing Society, Ward1(1), Nashik New Bombay Highway, Nashik – 422 001, Maharashtra PAN: AFCPG1961M Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Deepa Khare Respondent by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 25.06.2025 Date of pronouncement : 14.07.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of…

Mseb Employee Co Operative Credit Society Ltd Jalna, Jalna vs. ITO Ward 1 Jalna, Jalna

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1685/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1685/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Girish LaddaFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80P

…duly considering the submissions/ evidences filed by the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act and also considering the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it is held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assess…

Span Construction, Pune vs. I.T.O Wrd-3(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1346/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1346/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Span Construction, V The Income Tax Officer, H1, Flat No.203, S. Ward-3(3), Pune. S.No.123/A/1/1, Vanraji Heights, Rambaug Colony, Near Mit College, Kothrud, Pune – 411038. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaefs2589J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 27.03.2025 For A.Y.2017-18, Emanating From The Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Read With

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

…ssary details from the Assessing Officer. However, ld.CIT(Appeal) merely dismissed the appeal without adjudicating any of the grounds 5. 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 t…