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)

Bible Fellowship Center, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption, Ward-1(2), Pune

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

ITA 2281/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2281/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ashok G. RathodFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12A(1)(b)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80G

…AC for denovo adjudication. The settled position of the issues raised in appeal on merits. In this regard, reference is being made to a 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) wherein it was held that NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Finding of the CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and Grounds of…

Vivek Ramrao Paraskar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner 32(2), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5821/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh
Section 143(3)

…rounds raised in appeal before the CIT(A). Thus, in effect, the appeal has been dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Nagpur Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF): [2016] 240 Taxman 133 (Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay)[25-04-2016], it has been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court that the provisions of the Act do not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal preferred by an assessee on account of non-prosecution. Accordingly, the CIT(A) was required to dispose of the appeal on merits. Therefore, we set aside the order, dated 06/10/2024, passed by the C…

Siddharth Pandarinath Bhadale, Pune vs. ITO, Pne-W-(58)(91), Pune

Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1465/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 55ASection 56(2)(x)

…see before ld.CIT(A). Even otherwise, as per section 250 of the Act, ld.CIT(A) has to adjudicate each and every ground of the appeal. 4.3 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 t…

Valiance Heatlhcare Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4607/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram
Section 143(3)Section 144B

…rounds raised in appeal before the CIT(A). Thus, in effect the appeal has been dismissed by the CIT(A) for non- prosecution. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Nagpur Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF): [2016] 240 Taxman 133 (Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay)[25- 04-2016], it has been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court that the provisions of the Act do not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal preferred by an assessee on account of non- prosecution. Accordingly, the CIT(A) was required to dispose of the appeal on merits. Therefore, we set aside the order, dated 15/07/2024, passed by the…

Burst Healthcare Private Limited, Pune Maharashtra vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1509/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 80

…Precedents Ignored* The CIT(A) ignored various judicial precedents that emphasize the importance of addressing the issues on merit and not dismissing appeals for procedural lapses. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom.) held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. 1. "CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra HUF (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom.)** The Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide the appeal on merits, considering all the relevant facts and evidence. 2…

Lotus Multy Speciality Hospital, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2258/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2257 & 2258/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 Lotus Multy Specialty Hospital, V The Income Tax Officer, Shewalewadi Phata, Pune S Ward-14(5), Pune. Solapur Road, Manjari, Pune – 412307. Pan: Aaffl6270J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Girish Ladda – Ca/Ar Revenue By Smt Shraddha Nichal - Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2018-19; Dated 15.02.2024 & 04.07.2024 Respectively, Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By The Common Order. We Will Take The A.Y.2016-17 As A Lead Case.

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

…as assessee has not filed any reply before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits. 3.1 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…

Lotus Multy Speciality Hospital, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2257/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2257 & 2258/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2018-19 Lotus Multy Specialty Hospital, V The Income Tax Officer, Shewalewadi Phata, Pune S Ward-14(5), Pune. Solapur Road, Manjari, Pune – 412307. Pan: Aaffl6270J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Girish Ladda – Ca/Ar Revenue By Smt Shraddha Nichal - Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2018-19; Dated 15.02.2024 & 04.07.2024 Respectively, Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By The Common Order. We Will Take The A.Y.2016-17 As A Lead Case.

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

…as assessee has not filed any reply before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits. 3.1 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…

Shri Venkatesh Nisarg Sahakari Gruhrachna Sanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. ACIT Ward 9(1), Pune

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

ITA 2174/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2174/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Venkatesh Nisarg Sahakari V The Acit, Gruhrachna Sanstha Maryadit, S Ward-9(1), Pune. S.No.56/3/1, Vadagaon Bk, Near Hotel Ashirvad, Haveli, Pune – 411041. Pan: Aaras2349J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri B.C.Malakar – Ar Revenue By Smt Shraddha Nichal – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/12/2024 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] For Assessment Year 2018-19 Dated 30.08.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A), Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Bangaluru Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Assessee Society Thereby Confirming The Computation Of Total Income Made In The Intimation U/S. 143(1) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Dated 12/07/2019 Issued By The Dcit, Cpc Bangaluru Assessing The Total Income In The Case Of The Appellant At Rs.10,04,160/- Ignoring & Without Appreciating The Facts Of The Case Appellant Housing Society That The Appellant Is A Mutual Society Created By The Members & The Source Of Its Income Was From The Members Only & Therefore Its Income Was Qualified For Exemption Under The Act On Concept Of Mutuality As A Mutual Concern. The Appellate Order Passed By The Appellate Authority Be Quashed & The Assessing Officer Be Directed To Re-Compute The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs. Nil Treating The Appellant As A Mutual Society.

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…Therefore, the grounds no.1 to 14 raised by the appellant are dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is 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 : 4 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) o…

M/S Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., Nagpur vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 381/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 7

…ccasions. However, we find that the learned CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order and in this regard, here, we would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in PCIT (Central) v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held 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 Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to h…

M/S Unijules Life Sciences Ltd, Nagpur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 380/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 7

…ccasions. However, we find that the learned CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order and in this regard, here, we would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in PCIT (Central) v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:– 5 M/s. Unijules Life Sciences Ltd. ITA no.380/Nag./2024 “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 ma…

M/S Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., Nagpur vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 223/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 7

…ccasions. However, we find that the learned CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order and in this regard, here, we would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in PCIT (Central) v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:– 5 M/s. Unijules Life Sciences Ltd. A.Y. 2015–16 “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 furth…

M/S Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., Nagpur vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 220/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 7

…ccasions. However, we find that the learned CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order and in this regard, here, we would like to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in PCIT (Central) v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:– 5 M/s. Unijules Life Sciences Ltd. “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 an…

Vmk Image, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune

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

ITA 1974/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1974/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

…CIT(A) NFAC to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issue raised in appeal on merits. In this regard, reference is being made to a 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) wherein it was held that NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. The observation of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced below : “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…

Suvarna Kiran Chavan, Nashik vs. ACIT Circle 1, Nashik

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

ITA 1785/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1785/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 2(14)(iii)Section 250

…CIT(A) NFAC to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issue raised in appeal on merits. In this regard, reference is being made to a 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) wherein it was held that NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. The observation of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced below : 5 Suvarna Kiran Chavan “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 inqui…

Ravindra Bhausaheb Madhavai, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1737/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1737/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

…CIT(A) NFAC to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issue raised in appeal on merits. In this regard, reference is being made to a 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) wherein it was held 6 Ravindra Bhausaheb Madhavai that NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. The observation of the Hon’ble High Court is reproduced below : “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 furth…

Il and Fs Energy Development Company Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 12(1) Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 3462/DEL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Vikrant A. Maheshwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251Section 36(1)(iii)

…erits 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 ha…

ITO Ward 1, Sangli vs. Balu Musa Dange, Sangli

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

ITA 930/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.930/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Income Tax Officer, V Balu Musa Dange, Ward-I, Sangli. S I Dsp Office Vishrambag, Sangli. Maharashtra – 416415. Pan: Ancpd1861F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Dated 07.03.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “(I) Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Holding That If The Similar Addition Is Made In The Case Of Assessee’S Wife, The Addition In Case Of Assessee Shall Become Protective. (Ii) Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Is Justified In Deciding The Issue On The Basis Of Statement Of Fact, As The Assessee Did Neither Attend Before The Ao Nor Before The Cit(A).

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)

…A) failed to do so. Therefore, the impugned direction given by ld.CIT(A) to treat the addition on protective basis is devoid of merits. 4. 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…

Lohiya Developers, Parli District Beed vs. ITO Ward -1 Jalna, Jalna

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

ITA 1425/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 250(6)

…e. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is not allowed. 4. In result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed and not allowed.” 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…

Ganesh Vishnu Harde, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1369/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1367, 1368 & 1369/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Ganesh Vishnu Harde, V The Income Tax Officer, 1, At Post Sonai, Newasa Dist, S Ward-2, Ahmednagar. Ahmednagar – 414105. Pan: Ahgph2574P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15, A.Y.2015-16 & A.Y.2016-17; All Dated 23.04.2024. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By The Common Order.

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

…(A) without discussing the Grounds of Appeal raised by the Assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the addition made. 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…

Ganesh Vishnu Harde, Ahmednagar vs. ITO, Ward-2 Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1368/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1367, 1368 & 1369/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Ganesh Vishnu Harde, V The Income Tax Officer, 1, At Post Sonai, Newasa Dist, S Ward-2, Ahmednagar. Ahmednagar – 414105. Pan: Ahgph2574P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/10/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/10/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2014-15, A.Y.2015-16 & A.Y.2016-17; All Dated 23.04.2024. Since The Issue Involved Is Common, All These Three Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By The Common Order.

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

…(A) without discussing the Grounds of Appeal raised by the Assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the addition made. 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…