How many judgments cite CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)?

659 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (297 CTR 614), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 250, Section 250(6), Section 251(1)(a), Section 251(2), Section 147, Section 246A.

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

Issues it is cited on

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

Judgments citing CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)

Sharad Maruti Awhale, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(3), Pune

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

ITA 1172/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1172/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak S. SasarFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 5

…shall examine the issues after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act as held by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) holding that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. Assessee is directed to provide 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 reasona…

Sardar Dastur Schools Trust, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Pmt Building, Swargate, Pune

ITA 1137/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1137/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sardar Dastur Schools Trust, 3 Lt Col Tarapore Road, Camp, Pune – 411001. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaats4768F Appellant/ Assessee V The Dy.Commissioner Of S. Income Tax Exemption, Pune. Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.02.2025 For A.Y.2017-18 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 18.01.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 11(1)(a)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 270ASection 270A(10)(c)

…ails before the ld.CIT(A). It is also noted that ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits. 2.3 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 : ITA No.1137/PUN/2025 [A] 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 fou…

Omprakash Asaram Mantri, Jalna vs. ACIT Central Circle 1, Aurangabad

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

ITA 1011/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1011/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

…authorities but still ld.CIT(A) is required to pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. For this proposition, we place reliance on 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 was held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. 5. Under the given facts and circumstances and there being no objection raised by the ld. Departmental Representative, we in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, deem it proper to restore the issue raise…

Shakil Shakur Bijapure, Satara vs. DCIT Circle, Satara

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

ITA 1082/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1082/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shakil Shakur Bijapure, V The Dy. Commissioner 36 Yashwantrao Super Marker, S. Of Income Tax, Circle, Shaniwar Peth, Karad, Satara. Satara – 415110. Maharashtra. Pan: Acgpb9332G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 28.02.2025. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1.On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order & Erred In Deciding The Issue Only On The Basis Of Material Available With Them, This Action Is Being Violative Of Principal Of Natural Justice. Your Appellant Prays For Granting Opportunity Of Hearing Before Lower Authorities.

Section 147Section 250Section 68

…details. The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated each and every ground raised by the assessee which is mandatory. We derive support from the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)(Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set-aside the order of ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. ITA…

Mr Amit Ashok Thawani, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle-23(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2618/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain(Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Amit Ashok Thawani Dcit, Circle 23(1) 20, Ashoora Mahal Mumbai G Road, 93 Marine Drive Vs. Mumbai-400 002. Pan : Acppt1749L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RaiFor Respondent: Shri H.S. Raheja

…re him. Since, Ld. CIT(A) was under legal obligation to decide the appeal on merits as he does not have any power to dismiss the appeal for non- 2 prosecution as has been hold by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom) and also by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT in case titled Sundararaman Jayaraman Iyer (ITA No. 1399/Pun/2024 dated 28.8.2024). 3. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and also keeping in view of the decision mentioned above, we set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of L…

Mr. Rahul Tulshiram Patil, Raigad vs. ITO Ward 5, Panvel

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

ITA 1025/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1025/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

…filing of the appeal but should be effectively pursued. However, Ld.CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the issues on merit as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) has held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. 3. Under the given facts and circumstances and there being no objection raised by the ld. Departmental Representative, we in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, deem it proper to restore all the issues raised befo…

Ram Raj Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jaipur

ITA 48/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(vii)

…sing the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution, whereas in view of Section 250(6) of the Act, the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal on account of non-prosecution, as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF, (2017)291 CTR 614 (Bom.) 3. The Ld CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by the AO, without deciding the case on merits and arbitrarily rejecting the appeal for non-prosecution.’’ 2.1 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed the Ground No. 1 as is evident from the written submission so filed by the ld…

Sri Sai Baba Sansthan, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption-2, Raipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 248/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.247 & 248/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Sai Mandir, Avenue-B, Civic Center, Sector-6, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aadts8938G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Exemption-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

…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…

Sri Sai Baba Sansthan, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption-2, Raipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 247/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80G

Designer Stone Impex, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1272/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…of the 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 7 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…

Ram Jeevan Soni, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal)

ITA 799/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 250(6)

…hereas in view 2 RAM JEEVAN SONI VS ITO, WARD 3(1), JODHPUR of Section 250(6) of the Act, the ld.CIT(A) has no power to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution as held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs Premkumar Arjundas Luthra, HUF (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.) 3. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by the AO who had arbitrarily rejected the explanation of assesse and not considered the facts of the case in proper perspective. 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the app…

Sri Sai Baba Sansthan, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption-2, Raipur

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

ITA 249/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.249/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Sai Mandir, Avenue-B, Civic Center, Sector-6, Bhilai-490 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aadts8938G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Exemption-Ii, Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 249(3)Section 5

…ot at all intentional, deliberate or malafide, if any in respect of the assessee. That as per the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar 5 Sri Sai Baba Sansthan Vs. ITO, Exemption-II, Raipur Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom) that every appellate authority should decide the grounds of appeal on merits. In this case, the matter has been dismissed in limine without condoning the delay of 405 days by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. That as examined by me, such delay since unintentional and primarily due to change of counsel by the assessee, therefore, it calls for much…

Venkataratnam Tiriminchi, Nellore vs. ITO., Ward-1, Nellore

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

ITA 434/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri S. Prasad Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Vishnu Priya, Sr.D.R

Section 147

…bligated to dispose off an appeal vide a speaking order and cannot dismiss the same simpliciter on the ground of want of prosecution 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 8 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 s…

Shri Sangram Ajit Kirloskar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 782/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.782/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri B.C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

…hout discussing anything on merits of the issues. We further observe that ld.CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) has held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. 4. Under the given facts and circumstances, considering the prayer of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee as well as no objection raised by the ld. Departmental Representative, in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties,…

Shivdas Venkat Gomare HUF, Latur vs. ITO Ward 1, Latur

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

ITA 760/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.760/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 250Section 253

…y the appellant stands dismissed.” 8. From the above, it is evident that ld.CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) has held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. 9. Under the given facts and circumstances, considering the submissions of the assessee as well as no objection raised by the ld. Departmental Representative, we deem it proper to restore the issues on merit to the file of ld.CIT(A) for…

Sandeep Kaur Gill, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Raipur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 237/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 237/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अ"ण खोड़िपया, लेखा सद" के सम" । BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 237/RPR/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sandeep Kaur Gill, v Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), 26/102, Shukla Colony Ravi Shankar s Raipur, C.G. Shukla Ward, Raipur-492001, C.G. PAN: ADCPG7812K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Hardik Jain, CA राज" की ओर से /Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनव…

Popatlal Tejraj Gandhi, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward11(1), Pune

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

ITA 855/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)

…) without dealing with the matter on merits, dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution placing reliance on certain judicial precedents. We observe that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT (Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) has held that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in ex-parte order. Taking guidance of the said judgment, and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to remit the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication on merits, for which a reasonable…

Madhyani Builders, Bhilai, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), Bhilai, Durg

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 189/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 189/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sethia, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 256(6)Section 3Section 40b

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अ"ण खोड़िपया, लेखा सद" के सम" । BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 189/RPR/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23) Madhyani Builders, V Income Tax Officer, Circle-1(1), G.E. Road, Supela, s Bhilai, Durg Bhilai-490023, Chhattisgarh PAN: AANFM4373K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Yogesh Sethia, CA राज" की ओर से /Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Dat…

Rohan Housing Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 622/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.622/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rohan Housing Private V The Deputy Limited, S. Commissioner Of Income 1-Modibaug, Commercial Tax, Central Circle-1(2), Building, Shivajinagar, Pune. Ganeshkhind Road, Near Agriculture College, Pune – 410016. Maharashtra. Pan: Aadcr6403N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sarvesh Kandelwal – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 07/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)/Addl.Cit[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18, Dated 06.01.2025.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 23(4)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

…ppeal is dismissed.” 2.2 Thus, it can be observed that the ld.CIT(A) had not adjudicated the Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. 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 ITA No.622/PUN/2025 [A] Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as fou…

Ashitkumar Ganesh Poria, Pune vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Pune

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

ITA 851/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.851/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / 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: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 29.01.2025 For Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. During The Preceding Before Cit Appeal, The Appellant Has Requested Time For Preparation Of Submission & Explain The Disputed Issue Vide Letter Dated 28.01.2025, Acknowledgement

Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(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 t…