How many judgments cite CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)?

659 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (297 CTR 614), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 250, Section 250(6), Section 251(1)(a), Section 251(2), Section 147, Section 246A.

CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)

297 CTR 614High Court2017#86 most cited

What is CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) authority for?

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.

659

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 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 250 Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 147 Section 246A Section 251(1)(b)Section 144

Issues it is cited on

section 251(2)section 251(1)(a)section 250(4)section 251(1)section 246a section 246 section 251 section 250(6)section 249(3)section 24 non-speaking order speaking order

Judgments citing CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)

Mani Agrawal, Indore vs. ITO-3(3), Indore

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

ITA 283/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Indore23 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.283/Ind/2025 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mani Agrawal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4/304, Shalimar Malwa 3(3), Indore Enclave, Ab Road, Indore Pan – Ajzpa 3110 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goyal, ARFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 5

…t the Ld. CIT(A) shall examine the issues after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a speaking order in the light of the judgments of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) holding that 5 Mani Agrawal ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. Further, assessee is directed to provide latest email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherw…

Sant Harkewal Shikshan Samiti, Ambikapur, Surguja vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ambikapur

Appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 570/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.570/Rpr/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sant Harkewal Shikshan Samiti, Namna Kala, Surguja, Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh, 497001 Pan: Aaias1529F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Mr. G.S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr.DR

Section 147rSection 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)

…ecution. It is clear that sufficient opportunities were provided to the assessee, however, there was no compliance. At the same time, as mandated by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom)., the appellate authority must address the merits of each of the ground of appeal and cannot dismiss the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. A quasi judicial authority must record its finding on the basis of assessment order and the statement of facts and grounds of appeal, if no submission has been placed on record. But, it is not open t…

Vasant Krishnaji Supekar, Pune vs. ITO Ward 5(4), Pune

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

ITA 1899/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1899/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vasant Krishnaji Supekar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C-6, Rajeshri Shahu Society, Ward-5(4), Pune Pune Satara Road, Bibvewadi S.O., Pune City, Pune 411037 Maharashtra Pan : Clpps2859R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Shastri and Shri Saurabh PatilFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar

Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

…d in the appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Ld. CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of app…

Cherukuri Veeraju, Rajahmundry vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Rajahmundry

ITA 465/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.465/Viz/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Cherukuri Veeraju, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Rajahmundry. Of Income Tax, Pan:Abxpc6760H Circle-1, Rajahmundry. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Sri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 08/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 13/10/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 27/05/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nafac), Delhi Under Section 271D Of The 2 Cherukuri Veeraju Vs. Dcit

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271D

…e to concur with the manner in which the appeal had been disposed of by the CIT(A) based on a non-speaking order. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). In the aforementioned case, the Hon'ble High Court by referring to Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and “Explanation” to Sec. 251(2) of the Act, had observed that the CIT(A) is required to apply his mind to all the issues which arises from the impugned order before him whether or not the same had been raised by the appellant before him. It was fu…

Sunil Govindlal Agrawal, Dhule vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dhule

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

ITA 1958/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1958/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sunil Govindlal Agrawal, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Dhule. 2827B, Lane No.4, Khol Galli Dhule- 424001. Pan : Aavpa1816F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah Revenue By : Shri Manishkumar Sinha Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. There Is Delay Of 262 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manishkumar Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

…ty to the assessee by remitting the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Ld. Departmental Representative was fair enough in not opposing the request of the assessee. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) has held that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an ex-parte order. In view thereof and without dwelling into merits of the issues and considering the submissions of the assessee, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for necessary adjudication. Assessee is at liberty to…

Ratilal Dagadulal Mutha, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5), Pune

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

ITA 1818/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1818/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-15 Ratilal Dagadulal Mutha, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. No.W 181/6A, Gajanana Housing Society, Dound Baramati, Pune- 413801. Pan : Arwpm4183H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Manishkumar Sinha Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is Delay Of 180 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manishkumar Sinha

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

Bhushan Balasaheb Bagul, Dhule vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward -1, Dhule

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

ITA 1253/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Harish Bist

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

…and after considering the submissions/evidences to be filed by the assessee shall pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is hereby…

Birendra Singh Nirbhay, Sirsi Road Jaipur Rajasthan vs. ITO Ward 3(1) Jaipur, Ncrb Income Tax Department Statue Circle Jaipur Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 69C

…nquiry before dismissing the appeal. Further, the CIT (A) is under an obligation to decide on each point of the appeal, i.e. grounds on merits also need to be discussed even passing ex-parte order. Reliance is placed in the case CIT v. Premkumar Arjunda(2107) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) where-in, the court states that a plain reading of Section 251 (1) (a) and (b) & explanation of Section 251 (2) of the act mandates that CIT (A) shall apply its mind to all the issues which arise from the order before him, whether or not the appellant has raised the same before him. Therefore, it is held by the court that CIT (Appeal) ha…

Ojasvi Media Matrix Private Limited, Indore vs. AO, NFAC Delhi

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

ITA 5210/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryojasvi Media Matrix Pvt. Assessing Officer, Nfac, Ltd., 852, Sudama Nagar, Delhi. Vs. Opp. Jain Mandir, Indore (Mp) Pan: Aabco 1930 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pitamber Kumar, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

…AO, dated 07/03/2024, u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, in limine, without touching the merits of the case, which is not permissible as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom.) wherein it has been held as under:- “This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251 (2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law doe…

Runa Vishal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 22(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3792/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryruna Vishal Shah, Block Ito, Ward-22(3)(2), No.3, Veer Building, Mumbai. Tagore Road, Santacruz Vs. (W), Mumbai. Pan: Bdcps 8211 D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Ld. Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68Section 69C

…ed the appeal of the Assessee for non-prosecution and/or in limini, without going into the merits of the case, which is not permissible, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom.) wherein it has been held as under: - “This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251 (2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law doe…

Samrat Wires Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the aforesaid terms

ITA 5154/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrysamrat Wires Pvt. Ltd., Dcit, Circle-13(1) Mumbai. 303 Elphinstone House 17, Marzban Road Fort, Vs. Mumbai-400 001

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agiwal, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Pitamber Kumar, Ld.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…ex-parte and ultimately dismissed the same in limini, without touching upon the merits of the case due to non-prosecution, which is not permissible, as held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom), as under:- This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251 (2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) t…

Rahul Arun Mandlik, Pune vs. ITO WD- 5(2), Pune

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

ITA 1984/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1984/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rahul Arun Mandlik, V The Income Tax Officer, Sr No.34/3/2, Kashi S Ward-5(2), Pune. Vishveshewar Apartment, Nt Yenpure Nagar, Dhankawadi, Pune – 411043. Pan: Bmbpm1461M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Smt.Sonal L Sonkavde – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 30/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015-16 Dated 16.12.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Act, Dated 27.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

…rovided four opportunities to the Assessee, but assessee failed to file any reply. Accordingly, ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] dismissed the appeal. 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…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Pune, Akurdi vs. Shamsundar Kaliram Agarwal, Pune

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 1428/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1428/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, V Shamsundar Kaliram Ward-8(1), Pune. S Agarwal, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Near Akurdi Railway Station, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Akurdi, Pune – 411044. Pan: Alzpa2906R Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 29/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue(Income Tax Officer, Ward- 8(1), Pune), Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 154 R.W.S 250 Of The Act, 1961 Dated 28.03.2025 Emanating From The Order Passed Under Section 250 R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147rSection 154Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251

…CIT(A)[NFAC] to adjudicate the Assessee’s appeal on merits as per Section 250 of the Act, 1961. It will be important to refer the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. In the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) 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 to him as foun…

Novelty Power & Infratec Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-7(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2108/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry&

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jain, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr.D.R

Section 144Section 250Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69C

…As observed above, the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case, which is at all not permissible in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom.) wherein it has been held as under: - “This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251 (2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law do…

Diamond Tradecom Private Ltd., Maharashtra vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

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

ITA 1389/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 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). 5.5 The only material available to decide the appeal is the assessment order. 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. I.T.A. No.: 1389/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Diamond Tradecom Private Ltd. 6. In the res…

Dattaprasad Radhakisan Revgade, Hivargaon vs. ITO Ward 2, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1897/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra, Judicialmember & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1897/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dattaprasad Radhakisan V The Income Tax Officer, Revgade, S Ward-2, Ahmednagar. At Hivargaon Post Dongargaon, Tal Aklole, Ahmednagar – 422609. Pan: Cddpr8213C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna – Ar Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 03/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal(Nfac) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19 Dated 23.06.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)

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

Smt. Shanti Kurrey, Durg vs. ITO-1(5), Bhilai

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

ITA 532/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.532/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Shanti Kurrey Kumhari, Dhamdha, Dist. Durg, Chhattishgarh-491 001 Pan: Bqzpk2494L

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

Section 250

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.532/RPR/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Shanti Kurrey Kumhari, Dhamdha, Dist. Durg, Chhattishgarh-491 001 PAN: BQZPK2494L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer-1(5), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 25.09.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncem…

V.R. Sukhwani Projects, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer - Circle 2, Pune

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

ITA 1750/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1750/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 V.R.Sukhwani Projects, V The Income Tax Officer, Office No.B-1205, S Circle-2, Pune Amar Business Zone, Baner, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqfv3888H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Miss Sailee Gujarathi – Ar Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 22.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 04.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 144Section 234BSection 250Section 801BSection 80I

…ail address mentioned in Form No.35. Therefore, we agree with the pleading of the ld.AR that notices were not served on the assessee. 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…

Manoj Balasaheb Ingale, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward-1, Ahmednagar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 128/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 147Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…ppeals within the stipulated time. Ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the appeals on merits as contemplated u/s.250(6) in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). 7. We therefore in the light of the above decisions and considering the facts and circumstances in the instant appeals and the fact that ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of the case deem it appropriate to provide one more opportunity to substantiate its case by filing the requisite documents/evidences. In view thereof, all the issue…

Manoj Balasaheb Ingale, Ahmednagar vs. ITO Ward-1, Ahmadnagar

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 127/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 147Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)