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 367,154 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)

Jagannath Tryambakrao Vyavahare, Nashik vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1436/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1436/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Jaganath Tryambakrao The Income Tax Vyavahare, V Officer, Ward-2(1), Sambhaji Chowk, Niphad, S Nashik. Nashik, Maharashtra – 422303. Pan: Aigpv5925R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 06/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/03/2024 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(Appeal)[Nfac] Dated 09.08.2023 For A.Y.2015-16. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Dismissing The Appeal & Upholding The Order Of Ld Ao Without Serving Notice Of Hearing On The Registered Address Of The Appellant.

Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 282

…an be seen that the ld.CIT(A) did not adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. 3 Jagannath Tryambakrao Vyavahare [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…

Chandrakant Subhashrao Thakare, HUF, Washim vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Akola Circle, Washim

ITA 23/NAG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur01 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.23/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Chandrakant Subhashrao The Assistant Thakare –Huf, V Commissioner Of Income Sohan Autobikes, Near S Tax, Circle Akola. Railway Gate, Pusad Naka Washim – 444505. Pan: Aabhc6338Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Sachin Jaiwal – Advocate-Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 01/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01/03/2024 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(Appeal)[Nfac] Dated 06.12.2022 For A.Y.2014-15. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. Hon'Ble Cit (Appeal) Erred In Dismissing Appeal. 2. Hon'Ble A.O. Erred In Disallowance Of Workshop Chandrakant Subhashrao Thakare-Huf [A]

Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

…is case, order of ld.CIT(A) contains only four sentences. 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 : 3 Chandrakant Subhashrao Thakare-HUF [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…

M/S. Unifues Life Sciences Ltd., Nagpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

ITA 419/NAG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.419/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S.Unijules Life Sciences The Assistant Ltd., V Commissioner Of Income B 35/36, Midc Kalmehwar, S Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur – 441501. Nagpur. Pan: Aaacu8032D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024 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)-3, Nagpur Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 08.11.2021 Emanating From The Order Under Section 153A R.W.S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 30.03.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : M/S.Unijules Life Sciences Ltd., [A]

Section 14Section 153ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

…dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. 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…

Prakash Ramesh Sharma, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(5), Nagpur

ITA 382/NAG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.382/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Ramesh Sharma, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.69, Pmg Society, V Ward-4(5), Nagpur. Behind Ganesh Mandir, S Narendra Nagar, Nagpur. Maharashtra – 440015. Pan: Avops5603A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024 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], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 15.09.2022 Emanating From The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 28.12.2016. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : Prakash Ramesh Sharma [A]

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 56

…is case, order of ld.CIT(A) contains only four sentences. 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 : 3 Prakash Ramesh Sharma [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…

Pudhari Publications Private Limited, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Kolhapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 12/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.10 To 12/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Pudhari Publications Private Ltd., The Ito, Tds, 2318, C Ward, Pudhari Bhavan, V Kolhapur – 416003. Bhausingji Road, S Kolhapur – 416002. Pan: Aadcp2453Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranik – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 10.11.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.10/Pun/2024 For A.Y.2019-20, As A Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2019-20 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 154Section 192Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

…r non-prosecution. The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits. Pudhari Publications Private Ltd., [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…

Pudhari Publications Private Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Kolhapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 11/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.10 To 12/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Pudhari Publications Private Ltd., The Ito, Tds, 2318, C Ward, Pudhari Bhavan, V Kolhapur – 416003. Bhausingji Road, S Kolhapur – 416002. Pan: Aadcp2453Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranik – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 10.11.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.10/Pun/2024 For A.Y.2019-20, As A Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2019-20 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 154Section 192Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

…r non-prosecution. The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits. Pudhari Publications Private Ltd., [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…

Pudhari Publications Private Limited, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS, Kolhapur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 10/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Pune20 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.10 To 12/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 Pudhari Publications Private Ltd., The Ito, Tds, 2318, C Ward, Pudhari Bhavan, V Kolhapur – 416003. Bhausingji Road, S Kolhapur – 416002. Pan: Aadcp2453Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranik – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 19/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 10.11.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.10/Pun/2024 For A.Y.2019-20, As A Lead Case. The Assessee For A.Y.2019-20 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 154Section 192Section 201(1)Section 220(2)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

…r non-prosecution. The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits. Pudhari Publications Private Ltd., [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…

Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Present Jurisdiction the ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 905/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 148

…, 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 ITA No. 904&905/Ahd/2023 Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Years –2012-13 & 2015-16 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 sam…

Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1) Present Jurisdiction the ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 904/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Hemanshu Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 148

…, 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 ITA No. 904&905/Ahd/2023 Babubhai Ramanbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Years –2012-13 & 2015-16 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 sam…

Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, Kamatwade vs. Income Tax Officer, Nashik

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 893/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.893/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.06, S.No.16/3/1, V Nashik. Samarth Bungla, Near S Modakeshwar Mandir, Modakeshwar Nagar, Kamatwade, Nashik – 422010. Pan: Aakpv1138N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/02/2024 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], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) Of Rs.82,093/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law. Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare [A]

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 271

…dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. 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…

Mr Sunil Shankar Bandal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward.2(5), Pune

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1105/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr.Sunil Shankar Bandal, The Income Tax Officer, At Post Bavdhan Bk, Taluka V Ward-2(5), Pune. Mulshi, Pune – 411021. S Pan: Ajkpb8627M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/02/2024 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], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.08.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act Are Time Barred Since The Notice Issued U/S 148 Of The Act Is Served After 6 Years. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated Be Kindly Quashed & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect. Mr. Sunil Shankar Bandal [A]

Section 129Section 147Section 148Section 250

…sessee for 3 Mr. Sunil Shankar Bandal [A] non-prosecution. The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated various grounds raised by the assessee. 4.1 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…

Usha Infra, Ajmer vs. ITO Ward-1, Beawer

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

ITA 703/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl CIT-DR
Section 144Section 68

…part to dispose off the same on merit and it is not open for him to summarily dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the same by the assessee. This is fortified by Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of CIT Vs Premkumar Arjundas (HUF (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). Hence, respectfully following the above mentioned judicial pronouncements and in view of the facts of the case, the appeal is hereby dismissed. In my considered view, the findings of the AO in the assessment order are self- speaking and do not require any interference. Hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. In the end result, the a…

Manoj Mahadevappa Menkundale, Latur vs. ITO, Ward 1, Latur

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

ITA 1426/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1426/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Manoj Mahadevappa The Income Tax Officer, Menkudale, V Ward-1, Latur. Menkudale Niwas, Pachamma S Galli, Azad Chowk, Latur – 413512. Pan: Bkspm2680R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31/01/2024

Section 144Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

…ponse to four notices issued by ld.CIT(A). 4.1 Thus, it can be observed that ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] has not adjudicated the grounds of the assessee. 4.2 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 3 Manoj Mahadevappa Menkundale [A] and report the result of t…

Venkata Ramireddy Kalluru, Kurnool vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kurnool

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

ITA 630/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Venkata Ramireddy Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Kalluru, Ward-2, Kurnool. 87/1281/12-F, Somisetty Nagar, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh – 518599. Pan : Dkwpk3931F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sashank Dundu. Revenue By: Shri Aravindakshan, Sr.Ar Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri Sashank DunduFor Respondent: Shri Aravindakshan, SR.AR
Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 294Section 69A

…osition that the tax authorities have no power to dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution without going into the merits of the case. This is supported by the judgment of the Honourable Bombay High Court in case of CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay)[25-042016]. 3. The First Appellate Authority ought to have noticed that the Appellant has no other source of income other than agricultural income and the fact that sale of agriculture produce and receipt of money thereof was deposited in the bank account prior to the de- monetisation period, was admitted by the AO as well as the NFAC, i…

A to Z Stock Trade Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 1(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1075/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…xamine the issues on merit while framing ex-parte order. The dismissal of appeal on account of non prosecution is thus not justified in the light of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.). 9. In the totality of the circumstances, we consider it just and expedient to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) in larger I.T.A. No.1075/Del/2020 5 interest of justice with a view to enable the assessee to avail proper opportunity to dispose of appeal before the CIT(A) on various points. Needless to say, the assessee shall extend fu…

Samata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Osmanabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward, Nanded

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

ITA 1259/PUN/2023[A.Y.2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2023

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1259/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Samata Shikshan Prasarak The Income Tax Officer, Mandal Paranda, V Exemption Ward, C/O. Adhyapak Vidyala, S Nanded. Paranda, Osmanabad- 413502. Maharashtra. Pan: Aahts3344N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit – Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2023

Section 10Section 139Section 139(40)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 154Section 234Section 234ASection 234E

…he grounds of the assessee rather the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] has not properly adjudicated the main issue i.e. interest under section 234A of the Act. 5.2 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 : 4 Samata Shikshan Prasarak Mandal [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 o…

Shalin Star, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3154/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution by the Appellant which is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court 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] wherein it has been held 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. On the other hand, the Appellant has also failed to comply with the notice of hearing issued by the CIT(A). However, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellan…

Ritesh Gandhare, Chandrapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Chandrapur

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

ITA 247/NAG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur29 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.247/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ritesh Gandhare, The Income Tax Officer, 01, Near Central Excise, Datala V Ward-2, Chandrapur. Road, Opp.Agresan Bhawan, S Jagannath Baba Nagar, Chandrapur – 442402. Maharashtra Pan: Ahjpg2827M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Atal – Ar Revenue By Shri Vijay Kumar Subrahmanyan– Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 28/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2023

Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

…appeal without discussing merits, as assessee failed to file submission in response to two notices issued by ld.CIT(A). 2 Ritesh Gandhare [A] 4.1 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 25…

Sana Hospitality Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai

ITA 2946/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri K. ShivaramFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan
Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

…serious in pursuing the appeal, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of ‘lack of prosecution’. We note that 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 rather than dismiss the same on account of non- prosecution. Therefo…

Mukesh, Sonepat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Sonepat

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

ITA 2772/DEL/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2023AY 2011-2012
Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)

…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 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 nonappearance. Needless to say, the CIT(A) plays role of both adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority. Thus, the CIT(A) could not hav…