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)

Pandurang Maruti Abhang, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 5(4), Pune

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

ITA 844/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.844/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Pandurang Maruti Abhang, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.203, Narayan Bag S Ward-5(4), Pune. Society, Lane No.8, Shiv Nagar, Kirkatwadi, Sinhagad Road, Pune – 411024. Maharashtra. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Himanshu Choudhary – 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 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 29.01.2025 For Assessment Year2019-20. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

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

…the appeal of the assessee on account of non- compliance. The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits. 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) asunder : ITA No.844/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…

Payal Sanjay Soni, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(3), Pune

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

ITA 799/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.799/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Payal Sanjay Soni, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.B12, Satyam Co-Op S Ward-6(3), Pune. Hsg Soc, Opp Gavkosh Maruti Mandir, 1452 Kasba Peth, Pune – 411002. Maharashtra. Pan: Bncps5773C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pratik Sandbhor – Ar (Virtual Hearing) Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/05/2025 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 13.01.2025 For Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 250Section 694Section 69A

…essment order is CONFIRMED and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Hence all Ground of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 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…

Dnyankala Sanvardhini Sanstha, Pune vs. ITO Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 794/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: FixedITAT Pune15 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.791/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Manju Rameshchandra Mutha, V The Income Tax Office, Om Shanti Complex, Nehru S Ward-1, Jalna. Road, Dist-Jalna – 431203. Maharashtra. Pan: Aztpm9323L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateek Jha – Ar Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/05/2025 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 10.02.2025 For Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevaling In The Case, The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Appeal (Nfac) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 44Section 44ASection 69A

…ssed the appeal of the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits. ITA No.791/PUN/2025 [A] 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…

Yogesh Durgadas Phal, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Pune

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

ITA 436/PUN/2025[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2025

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.436/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.Yogesh Durgadas Phal, V The Income Tax Officer, 309/33 Gokhale Nagar, Shivaji S Ward-3(2), Pune. Nagar, Opp.Patrakar Nagar, Haweli, Pune – 411016. Maharashtra. Pan: Abjpp1640F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sailee Gujarathi – Ca Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/05/2025 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 29.11.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 234ASection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

…n merit, but merely dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits. 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…

Vishwanath Madhav Jawale, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Pune

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

ITA 806/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.806/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Shah and Shri Rohit S. TapadiyaFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

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

…appeal of the assessee merely affirming the action of the AO. 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 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 and considering the fact that ld.CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order, we deem it proper to restore the issues on merit to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Assessee is directed t…

Air Products Public Limited Company, United Kingdom vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) Circle - 1, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 694/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.694/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri Alisagar RampurawalaFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade

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

…. We further notice that ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal without discussing the issues on merits and has summarily confirmed the order of ld.AO. 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. 6. We therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the larger interest of justice deem fit to restore the issues raised on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and for deciding the issu…

Sanjay Dattaram Gurav, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri

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

ITA 690/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.690/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Indira Adakil

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

….11.2024, 07.01.2025 and 15.01.2025. We further observe that ld.CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. We find that 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. 5. We therefore taking liberal approach and also in the larger interest of justice deem fit to restore the issues raised on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and for deciding the issue in accordance with law and…

M/S. Hemal Readymix Concrete, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 2(3), Thane

ITA 6978/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order, dated 21/11/2024. As a result, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. Hemal Readymix Concrete Mr. Jagannath Temkar, 504/A, Radheja Green Co-op Hsg. Soc., Kulupwadi, Borivali East Mumbai – 400 066. Maharashtra. [PAN:AAFFH6026C] .…………. Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), Mumbai Ashar IT Park, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane West, Thane – 400604. Maharashtra. …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Respondent/Department : Shri Hemanshu Joshi Date Conclusion of hearing : 24.02.2025 Pronouncement of order : 13.05.20…

Kavita Budhia, Near Maa Sharda Hospital Ring Road vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Korba, Mahanadi Complex, Niharika

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

ITA 171/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 171/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

…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: 171/RPR/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17) Kavita Budhia, V Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Korba, Pioneer Building, A-1, Agroha Society s Mahanadi Complex, Niharika Shiv Mandir Marg, Near Maa Sharda Hospital, Ring Road, No. 1, Raipur-492013, C.G. PAN: AJHPB6340E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by : None (Adjournm…

M/S Gulzar-Moksh(Jv), Jagdalpur, Bastar vs. Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur, Bastar

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

ITA 166/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.166/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Gulzar-Moksh (Jv) Gulzar Niwas, Geedam Road, Jagdalpur (C.G)-494 001 Pan: Aanfg4916A ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Jagdalpur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 250(4)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 5

…not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal in limine without adverting to the merits of the case. 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…

Spin Packaging Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 165/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 165/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

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

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…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: 165/RPR/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18) Spin Packaging Ltd., v Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Agrawal Bhawan Vidya Nagar, s Income Tax-1(1), Bilaspur, C.G. Bilaspur, 495 001, C.G. PAN : AACCS3713K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Bikram Jain, CA राज" की ओर से /Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel,…

Asif Ali, Nawagarh Ambikapur vs. ITO Ward 1 Ambikapur, Kharasiya Road Ambikapur

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

ITA 159/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.159/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Asif Ali Nawagarh Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G)-497 001 Pan: Aoypa3486J ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 5

…law the CIT(Appeals) is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal on account of 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…

Lokesh Kumar Nayak, Mahasamund vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 149/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.149/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Lokesh Kumar Nayak Ward No.12, Thakurdiya Khurd Masamund (C.G.)-493 551 Pan: Baypn3445D ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

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

Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 5

…not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal in limine without adverting to the merits of the case. 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 5 Lokesh Kumar Nayak Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Raipur (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…

Saurabh Jayant Bhaga, Raigad Panvel vs. ITO Ward-1, Panvel

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

ITA 2718/PUN/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2717 & 2718/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Saurabh Jayant Bhagat, The Income Tax Officer, A-806, Balaji Aangan, Nr. S T V Panvel. Depot, Panvel Raigad–410206. S. Maharashtra. Pan: Aklpb9996P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Gaurang Khakhkhar – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar & Shri Vinod Pawar – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Date 31.05.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) The Honorable Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Upholding The Reassessment Proceedings Without Communicating The Reason For Reopening Of Assessment.

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…o.7 of the paper book and noted that ld.CIT(A) has not provided proper opportunity to the assessee. ITA Nos.2717 & 2718/PUN/2024 [A] 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…

Saurabh Jayant Bhagat, Panvel Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Panvel

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

ITA 2717/PUN/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025AY 2013-2014

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

Power Mech Infra Private Limited, Vijayawada vs. DCIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

ITA 201/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 May 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…he appeal is disposed off on merits and not dismissed owing to the absence of the appellant. 12. Apart from that, our 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 same…

Atmaram Pundlik Mhatre, Pen vs. ITO, Ward 4, Panvel

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

ITA 740/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.740/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Vs Ito, Ward 4, Atmaram Pundlik Mhatre, House No. 313, At Panvel Vadhav, Tal Pen, Dist Raigad-402107 Maharashtra Pan-Avspm9678F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: CA Vidhi SolaniFor Respondent: Mrs. Indira Adakil

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

…ail id, we deem it appropriate to remit the issue raised on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication to be carried out in the light of judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT(C) Vs. Prem Kumar Arjundas Luthra (huf) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) and pass a speaking order. The assessee is also directed to furnish necessary details for which reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee and if deemed appropriate Ld. CIT(A) may call for remand report from the AO for the additional evidence filed by the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and…

S R Automobiles, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-3(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 1269/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT a

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…ore him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act. This view is also taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom.). A bare glace of the order of the CIT(A) shows that CIT(A) has not addressed itself on the various points placed for its determination at all and dismissed the appeal of assessee for default in non-appearance. Needless to say, the CIT(A) plays role of both adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority. Thus, the CIT(A) could not ha…

Progressive Shelters Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(2), New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3416/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 115BSection 69A

…merits even in ex parte order. In view of Section 250(6) of the Act, the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal on account of non-prosecution. This view is also taken by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF, (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.). A bare glance of the order of the CIT(A) shows that CIT(A) has not addressed itself on various points placed for its determination at all and dismissed the appeal of assessee for default in non-appearance. Needless to say, the CIT(A) plays role of both adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority. Thus, the CIT(A) could not have…

Shaikh Najeeb Shaikh Abdul Hameed, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 664/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.664/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Yea: 2018-19 Shaikh Najeeb Shaikh Abudul V The Income Tax Officer, Hameed, S Ward-2, Ahmednagar. Naaz Press, Dukhi Nagarm, Street No.2, Old Jalna-431203. Maharashtra. Pan: Eipps2336E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 69A

…on merits, this office is left with no option but to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.” 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 : ITA No.664/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 fo…