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)

Sourabh Vijay Gadale, Pune vs. ITO Ward 2(4), Pune

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

ITA 1503/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1503/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 40A(3)

…ve dealt with the merits of the issues in appeal, even in the case of an ex-parte order. In this 3 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 CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. Therefore, I deem it proper to remit the matter to the file of Addl/JCIT(A)/NFAC for de novo disposal of the issues in appeal on merits afresh after allowing reasonable opportunity to the appellant, in accordance with law. I order accordingly. 7. In the resul…

Blue Star Building Material Pvt. Ltd., Uran Panvel vs. ACIT Circle Panvel, Panvel

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

ITA 1066/PUN/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

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

Section 139(1)Section 250Section 32(2)Section 72Section 80

…s available with ld.CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. However, ld.CIT(A) failed to discharge his duty. 5 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…

Shailesh Parshuram Pavar, Mangaon Tal Mangaon Raigad vs. ITO-5 Panvel, New Panvel

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES

ITA 1430/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14 Shailesh Parshuram Pavar At:30211 Uttekhol, Post: Nijampur Rd., Tal.: Mangaon, Raigad-402104 Pan: Bvapp5679L . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC’ BENCH PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shailesh Parshuram Pavar At:30211 Uttekhol, Post: Nijampur Rd., Tal.: Mangaon, Raigad-402104 PAN: BVAPP5679L . . . . . . . Appellant V/s The Income Tax Officer, Ward -5, Panvel. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : None for Assessee Revenue by : Mr BS Rajpurohit [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 11/09/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 11/09/2024 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; This appeal of the assessee chall…

Ratilal Dagadulal Mutha, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(5), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 774/PUN/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

…he issues in appeal, merely dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, which is contrary to the settled position of law. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) 3 Ratilal Dagadulal Mutha Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) has held 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 2…

More Deshpande and Associates, Pune vs. DCIT Circle 4(5)- Pune, Pune

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 924/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.924/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 More Deshpande & Associates, Vs Dcit, Circle-4(5), 113, 114, Nana Peth, Pune-411002 Pune Pan : Aabfm9425G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 14.03.2024 For The A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Assessing Officer Was Not Justified In Making The Addition To Income As Ltcg On Sale Of Property Of Rs.2,02,94,900/- Under Section 43Ca Of The Act. More Deshpande & Associates

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 43C

…he appellant has not been able to defend the grounds raised. Hence, grounds raised are rejected.” 3 More Deshpande and Associates 5.2 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…

Girish Ratanlal Murkya, Jalna vs. Income Tax Department National Faceless Assessment Centre, Jalna

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

ITA 919/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.919/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Girish Ratanlal Murkya, Vs Income Tax Department, Near Market Yard, Main Road, National Faceless Assessment Tal.-Mantha, Dist.-Jalna-431504 Centre Pan : Agrpm1697A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 17.08.2023 For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld. Cit(A) (Nfac) Erred In Passing Appeal Order Under Sec. 250 Of The Act, Dt. 17-08-2023 Which Order Is Perverse Not Only To The Facts Of The Case & Also The Provisions Of The Act, 1961. Girish Ratanlal Murkya

Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

…mstances of the case it is observed that both the ld. CIT(A) as well as AO has passed ex- parte order. 3 Girish Ratanlal Murkya 6.2 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…

Audyogik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Nashik vs. ITO (Exemption) - 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 709/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Audyogik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Vs The Income Tax Officer Annasaheb Vaishampayan Vidyalaya, (Exemption)-1(1), Nashik Mahatma Nagar, Satpur, Nashik-422007 Pan : Aaata8178P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M. Joshi Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)/Addl./Jcit(A)-4, Bengaluru Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 11.02.2024 For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Audyogik Shikshan Prasarak Mandal

Section 11Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

…issed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance. The ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits. 5.1 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…

Bilidevalaya Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy, Sindhudurg vs. Income Tax Office, Kudal

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 701/PUN/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2024AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.701/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Bilidevalaya Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy, Vs The Income Tax Officer, S-7 Vinayak Apartment, Vaishyawada, Kudal Sawantwadi, Maharashtra-416510 Pan : Acgpb9237N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing 26/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) [Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 01.03.2024 For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.1,35,52,006/- (Sundry Creditors Rs.41,42,506 & Unsecured Loans Bilidevalaya Lakshmi Narasimha Murthy

Section 115BSection 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…te. 5.2 Thus, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the grounds, which is mandatory u/s 250(6) of the Act. 5.3 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 3 same to him as found in Section 250(4) of…

Sundararaman Jayaraman Iyer, Nashik vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Nashik

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1390/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1390/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Shelake
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

…gone into the merits of the issues in appeal, merely dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, which is contrary to the settled position of law. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of 3 Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) has held 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 2…

Rajendra Pandurang Shinde, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(2), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1384/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1384/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Shelake
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

…ot gone into the merits of the issues in appeal, merely dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, which is contrary to the settled position of law. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) has held 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 2…

Liyakat Appalal Pathan, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1361/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1361/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ratnakar Shelake
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…ot gone into the merits of the issues in appeal, merely dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, which is contrary to the settled position of law. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) has held 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 2…

Shreenath Developers, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(5), Vadodara

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

ITA 909/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Upadhyay, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 68Section 69A

…to be discussed even in an ex parte order. In view of section 250(4) and 250(6) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal on account of non- prosecution, without discussing the merits of the case. In the case of CIT v. Premkumar Arjunda (2107) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay), the Bombay High Court made the following observations: 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…

Uday Damodar Bajaj, Near Jog Maharaj, Bhajani Math, Nashik vs. Officer of the Income Tax, Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1341/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1341/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Uday Damodar Bajaj, V The Income Tax Officer, Near Jog Maharaj, Bhajani S Ward-1(1), Nashik. Math, Dhammagiri Road, Varachi Peth, Igatpuri – 422403. Pan: Ahypb2584P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 19.04.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “The Appellant, Aggrieved By The Order Passed By Ld. Additional / Joint Cit(A) - 7, Kolkata U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 19.04.2024 Preferred This Uday Damodar Bajaj [A]

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270FSection 271ASection 69A

…his appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed for nonprosecution. 5. In the result, the appeal 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 : 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…

Bhushan Radhakishan Chechani, Aurangabad vs. ITO Ward-3 Jalna, Jalna

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

ITA 1340/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1340/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ashok Radhakrishan Chechnai, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.B-56, Sector C-N-4, S Ward-1, Jalna. Cidco, Aurangabad – 431001 Pan: Aappc5074R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanjeevkuamr B Kabra – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)/Jcit(A), Gwalior Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 28.02.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether The Learned Assessing Officer Is Justified In Passing The Assessment Order For The Year On The Basis Of Joint Development Agreement Without Verifying The Fact That Possession Of Plot Till Ashok Radhakishan Chechnai [A]

Section 148Section 148(1)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 54F

…pellant is not interested in pursuing his case on merits. Based on these observations, the appeal of the appellant 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 : 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…

Jayantilal Ramchandra Jain, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Pune

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

ITA 1304/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1304/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jayantilal Ramchandra Jain, V The Income Tax Officer, 3 B, Mahatma Gandhi Road, S Ward-2(3), Pune. Krikee, Pune – 411003. Pan: Aaqpj2957F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri C V Deshpande – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac]Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 31.08.2023 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Gravely Erred In Not Accepting Request Of The Appellant For Adjourning The Matter By Giving Some More Time To The Appellant & Passing The Exparty Order Within 5 Days Of Request By The Appellant Jayantilal Ramchandra Jain [A]

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

…eover, mere facts mentioned in Form No. 35 cannot be considered in the absence of any supporting documentary evidence and submssions” 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…

Ramkrishna Cine Exhibitors, Pune vs. Pne Circle 2 Pune, Pune

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

ITA 768/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.768/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ramkrishna Cine Exhibitors, Vs. The Assessing Officer, C/O. Mangala Multiplex, Circle-2, Pune 101, Shivajinagar, Pune 411 005 Maharashtra Pan : Aalfr4229F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mandar S. Khire and Shri S.V. DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

…ot gone into the merits of the issues in appeal, merely dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, which is contrary to the settled position of law. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) has held 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 2…

Suparn Vaidik, Gurugram vs. ITO, Ward - 4(3), Gurugram

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

ITA 3507/DEL/2023[2017 - 18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Sankalp Malik, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

…n 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 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 h…

Rajiv Kumar, Sawda Village vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 37(2), Delhi

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

ITA 3476/DEL/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarvs. Ito Rajiv Kumar Village - Sawda, Ward – 37(2) Post Office-Nizampur Nangloi, Delhi – 110 002 Delhi – 110 081 Pan No. Bixpk 7891 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravinder Singh, Adv. Revenue By Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.08.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am :

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)

…s even in ex parte order. In view of Section 250(6) of the Act, the CIT(A) has no power to dismiss an appeal merely 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 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 by way of nonappearance. Needless to say, the CIT(A) plays role of both adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority. Thus, the CIT(A) could…

Hon Shri Babanrao Pachpute Vichardhara Trust Group of Institution Kashti, Kashti vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad

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

ITA 551/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Prasad R. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

…gone into the merits of the issues in appeal, merely dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, which is contrary to 3 the settled position of law. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) has held 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 2…

Dhiraj Raman Bhujbal, Pune vs. ITO Ward 3(3) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 908/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

…gone into the merits of the issues in appeal, merely dismissed 3 the appeal for non-prosecution, which is contrary to the settled position of law. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) has held 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 2…