CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)

Mukesh Lahu Jadhav, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Pune

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.542/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Mukesh Lalu Jadhav, V The Income Tax Officer, 92, Anand Park, It Road S Ward-2(1), Pune. Aundh, Pune – 411007. Pan: Afepj4215K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2024 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 24.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Presumptive Turnover & Percentage Of Profit Respectively @ Rs.6,98,20,894/- & 8% I.E. Rs.55,85,672/-

…in the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker Vs. CWT (1997) reported in 223-ITR-480 the present appeal is liable to be 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…

Accuscan Daignostic Service Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.526/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Accuscan Daignostic Service V The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, S Ward-1(1), Pune. 304, Rajat Apartmens, North Main Road, Lane-06, Koregaon Park, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aabca4647D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2024 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 19.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. That, On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of Cit(A), Nfac Dated 19.01.2024 In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Is Arbitrary, Erroneous, Contrary To Law & Is Opposed To The Principles Of Natural Justice, Equity & Fair Play. 2. That, On Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Accuscan Daignostic Service Pvt. Ltd., [A]

…dismissed the appeal of the assessee for 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) 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 3 Accuscan Daignostic Service Pvt. Ltd., [A] the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of…

Infotek Netalia Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-11, Pune

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1004/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Infotek Netalia Ltd., V The Acit, Commerzone, I T Park, S Circle-11, Pune. Yerawada, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aabci2205B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Mr.Abhineet P For Prateek Jha – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 10/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2024 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 19.07.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Deciding The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte Without Granting The Assessee Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. 2. The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Passing The Appellate Order Entirely Based On The Observations Of The Ld Ao & Without Appreciating That The Business Of The Assessee Company Was Closed & There Was No Employee To Handle The Income Tax Matters. Infotek Netalia Ltd., [A]

…dismissed the appeal of the assessee for 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) 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…

Mohammed Mazharuddin Mohd Raizuddin Mohd Raizuddin, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(7), Aurangabad

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.784/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2017-18

…have dealt with the merits of the issue in appeal, even in the case of an ex-parte order. 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 CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. In the light of this discussion, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to 3 the file of CIT(A) for de novo disposal of the issue in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly al…

York Transport Equipment (India) Private Limited, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 10(1), Pune

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.125/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2015-16

…have dealt with the merits of the issue in appeal, even in the case of an ex-parte order. 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 CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. 7. In the light of above discussion, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of CIT(A) for de novo disposal of the issue in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands par…

Rajendra Damodhar Jadhav, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.717/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2012-13

…appeal for non-prosecution, which is contrary to the settled position of law. In this regard, we would like to make a reference 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) has to decide the appeal on merit and CIT(A) does not have any power to dismiss appeal for non- prosecution. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are 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…

Jolly Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.255/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" : Assessment Year : 2013-14

…ppeal, merely dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, which is contrary to the settled position of law. Our view is fortified by the judgment 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 the Hon’ble High Court 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…

Anil Tarachand Kadu, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1), Pune

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1059/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anil Tarachand Kadu, The Deputy Gut No.115, Ranjankhol, V Commissioner Of Income Tilaknagar, Ahmednagar, S Tax, Central Cirlce-1(1), Ahmednagar – 413720. Pune. Pan: Aplpk9182P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Vinita Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2024 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 For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 07.08.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Anil Tarachand Kadu [A]

…e, the penalty of Rs.41,98,221/- made by the Assessing Officer is upheld. The ground of appeal raised by 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 : 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…

Anil Tarachand Kadu, Ahmednagar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1), Pune

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1058/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anil Tarachand Kadu, The Deputy Gut No.115, Ranjankhol, V Commissioner Of Income Tilaknagar, Ahmednagar, S Tax, Central Cirlce-1(1), Ahmednagar – 413720. Pune. Pan: Aplpk9182P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Vinita Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2024 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 For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 07.08.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 20.06.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Ex-Parte Order, Without Anil Tarachand Kadu [A]

…, the penalty of Rs.8,65,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer is upheld. The ground of appeal raised by 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 : 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 Samarth Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Pune vs. ITO, Exemotion Ward, 2 Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.629/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2011-12

…, merely dismissed the appeal for non- 3 prosecution, which is contrary to the settled position of law. Our view is fortified by the judgment 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 the Hon’ble High Court 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…

Sigmalon Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle 10, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.603/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2012-13

…al, merely dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution, which is contrary to the settled position of law. Our view is fortified by the judgment 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 the Hon’ble High Court 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…

Jai Shriram Sahakari Path Sansthan Mariyadit, Pune vs. ITO, Ward 6(4), Pune

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.173/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jai Shriram Sahakari Pat The Income Tax Officer, Sansthan Maryadit, V Ward-6(4), Pune. 1085, Bhawani Peth, S Padmashali Puram, Kamgar Middan, Nr Watar Tank, Pune – 411042. Pan: Aacaj7371A Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/04/2024 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 10.10.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming & The Ito, Ward 6(4), Pune (Learned Ao) Erred In Law & On Facts In Assessing Appellant'S Total Income At Rs.1,17,73,000/- By Making Addition Of The Same Amount U/S 69A Of The Ita, 1961. 2. Learned Cit(A) & The Learned Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Making Addition U/S 69A Without Appreciating That Cash Deposit By The Appellant Is Not Income Of The Appellant As The Same Amount Was Collected From Msedcl Consumers On Behalf Of Msedcl & Back-To-Back Transferred To Msedcl & Jai Shriram Sahakari Path Sansthan Maryadit [A]

…o disturb the order of the AO and his findings. Therefore, the impugned assessment order is upheld and no interference is called for.” 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…