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)

Asif Najir Shaikh, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(4) Pune, Pune

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 985/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)

…mit all the necessary details. 4. In this case, ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds of appeal raised by Assessee specifically. 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…

Rajendra Kumar Sapre, Bilaspur vs. ITO-2(1), Bilaspur

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

ITA 482/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.482/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Rajendra Kumar Sapre, Ward No.7, Shiwa Chowk, Post-Tifra, Bilaspur (C.G.) Pan: Cqips0419R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Birendra Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

…ct are there, as a quasi-judicial authority, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC should have acted in fair and judicious manner before arriving at a conclusion. That Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom) has clearly laid down following principles of law: "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 AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Se…

Air Products Holding B. V., Netherlands vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) Circle - 1, Pune

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

ITA 860/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…on record other than those already mentioned which may aid the claim of the appellant, I am constrained to accept the conclusions arrived at by the AO.” 7. We find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case 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 exparte order. We therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the larger interest of justice deem fit to restore the issues raised on merits in the impugned two assessment years to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjud…

Air Products Holding B. V., Netherlands vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (International Taxation) Circle - 1, Pune

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

ITA 859/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…on record other than those already mentioned which may aid the claim of the appellant, I am constrained to accept the conclusions arrived at by the AO.” 7. We find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case 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 exparte order. We therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the larger interest of justice deem fit to restore the issues raised on merits in the impugned two assessment years to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjud…

Deepak Chhabra, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-49(1), Delhi

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

ITA 979/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.979/Del./2025, A.Y. 2017-18 Deepak Chhabra Income Tax Officer, E-53A, Mansarover Garden, Ward-49(1), New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Pan: Afdpc9133N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/08/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am The Appeal For The Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2017-18 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2023 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, New Delhi [‘Cit(A)’].

Section 115BSection 254Section 271ASection 69A

…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 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 have…

Kmv Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT-CC-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 906/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Mohd. Afzal, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 251(1)

…has no power to dismiss an appeal without discussing the grounds as well as contentions of the assessee. A reference can be made to the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT (Central), Nagpur Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) reported in 297 CTR 614, wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held as under: “7. An appeal is filed with the CIT(A) from appealable orders listed in Section 246A of the Act. We find that the procedure in appeal before the CIT(A) and the powers of the CIT(A) are governed by Sections 250 and251 of the Act respectively. The relevant provisions for consideration are a…

Kmv Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT-CC-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 905/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Mohd. Afzal, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 251(1)

…has no power to dismiss an appeal without discussing the grounds as well as contentions of the assessee. A reference can be made to the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT (Central), Nagpur Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) reported in 297 CTR 614, wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held as under: “7. An appeal is filed with the CIT(A) from appealable orders listed in Section 246A of the Act. We find that the procedure in appeal before the CIT(A) and the powers of the CIT(A) are governed by Sections 250 and251 of the Act respectively. The relevant provisions for consideration are a…

Kmv Projects Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.905 & 906/Bang/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 783/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Mohd. Afzal, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Shivanand H Kalakeri, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 251(1)

…has no power to dismiss an appeal without discussing the grounds as well as contentions of the assessee. A reference can be made to the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT (Central), Nagpur Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) reported in 297 CTR 614, wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held as under: “7. An appeal is filed with the CIT(A) from appealable orders listed in Section 246A of the Act. We find that the procedure in appeal before the CIT(A) and the powers of the CIT(A) are governed by Sections 250 and251 of the Act respectively. The relevant provisions for consideration are a…

Krishnamurthy Rangappa, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1308/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2018-19 Krishnamurthy Rangappa, Income Tax Officer, 2, Manjunatha Nilaya, Ward-4(1)(1), Little Flower Hospital, R.M. Nagar, Bangalore. Vs. Bangalore-560016. Pan No : Agppr2719C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Pranav Krishna – Advocate Respondent By : Sri Balusamy N - Jcit Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Appeal Filed By Krishnamurthy Rangappa Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2018-19 On 18/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 09/04/2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sri Pranav Krishna – AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N - JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250

…ppeal of the assessee following the decision in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). Page 4 of 5 Krishnamurthy Rangappa vs. ITO 6. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (Central) v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:– “8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to hi…

Travelport Holiday (India) Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 11(30)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2411/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2411/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18 Travelport Holiday (India) Pvt. Ltd. 316, Woodrow Building, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400 053 Pan : Aabcv1143P

For Appellant: Shri Kiran MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 234ASection 5Section 69A

…n furnish necessary rejoinder towards the remand report of the A.O. as well as any further submission in defence. 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 had observed as under: 7 Travelport Holiday (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-11(30)(1), Mumbai "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…

Boppana Ashok Kumar, Gannavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

ITA 392/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Us:

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ate of the law the CIT(Appeals) is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. 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 observed as under: "8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the AO to make 7 Boppana Ashok Kumar further inquiry and report t…

Eclerx Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle2(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 4314/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4314/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 Eclerx Services Limited Unit No.401, 4Th Office Level, Building No.11, Serene Properties Pvt. Ltd. Sez Mind, Thane, Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai-400 708 Pan : Aaace7932L ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh Chaugule, CAFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

…te of law the CIT(Appeals) is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal on account of delay itself. The aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. PremkumarArjundasLuthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). In the aforementioned case the Hon’ble High Court had observed as under: "8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the sam…

Hdfc Bank Limited (As Successor to Hdfc Limited Which in Turn Was A Successor to Hdfc Investments Li, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4208/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4208/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2020-21 Hdfc Bank Limited (Successor To Hdfc Limited Which In Turn Was A Successor To Hdfc Investments Limited) Hdfc Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Pan : Aaach2702H/Aaach1462L

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 80G

…w the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal on account of non prosecution. The aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. PremkumarArjundasLuthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bom). In the aforementioned case the Hon’ble High Court had observed as under: "8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the sam…

Merrmax Software and Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4087/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4087/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2012-13 Merrmax Software & Systems Private Limited C/O. Veeta Legal Services, 7 Raheja Centre, Ground Floor, Fpj Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Pan : Aaecm2026K

For Appellant: Shri Kaushik Makwana, CAFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 156Section 69A

…the appeal on account of non prosecution. The aforesaid view is 8 Merrmax Software and Systems Private Limited Vs. ITO-3(2)(2), Mumbai 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 had observed as under: "8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the sam…

Mangalam Developers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-28(2)(2), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 166/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.166/Mum/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 Mangalam Developers Shop No.38, Plot No.17/18, Gautam Complex, Sector-11, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai Pan : Aatfm2007L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 3Section 43C

…the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal on account of non prosecution. The 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 had observed as under: "8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the AO to make further inquiry and report the result of the sam…

Herald Publications Pvt. Ltd, Panaji vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Assessment Unit, Delhi

ITA 160/PAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 160/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Herald Publication Pvt. Ltd. Ag-6, Campal Trade Centre, Opp. Taj Vivanta, H/H Mili, Panaji, Goa-403001 Pan : Aaach4580K . . . . . . . Appellant V/S National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi. . . . . . . . Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr Sanket Deshmukh [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 270ASection 371(1)Section 43B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PANAJI BENCH, GOA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 160/PAN/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Herald publication Pvt. Ltd. AG-6, Campal Trade Centre, Opp. Taj Vivanta, H/H Mili, Panaji, Goa-403001 PAN : AAACH4580K . . . . . . . Appellant V/s National Faceless e-Asstt. Centre, Delhi. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : None Revenue by : Mr Sanket Deshmukh [‘Ld. DR’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 18/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 19/08/2025 ORDER PER…

Bharatkumar Rajashree, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1279/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2016-17 Smt. Bharatkumar Rajashree, Income Tax Officer, C/O. M/S. Travenza Holidays, No. Ward-7(2)(1), 180/A, 16Th Main 4Th ‘T’ Block, Bengaluru. Jayanagar, Vs. Bengaluru-560041. Pan No : Auopr4145D Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Madhusudhan, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Appeal Filed By Smt. Bharatkumar Rajashree Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) (Nfac) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2016-17 On 05/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 22/12/2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised 11 Grounds Of Appeal Which Are Argumentative In Nature & Mainly They Revolve Around The Decision Of The Ld. Cit(A)’S In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 33,45,000/- (Being 1/3Rd Of The Entire Amount For Being Joint Holder

For Appellant: Sri Madhusudhan, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

…hereby dismissed.” 4. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without adjudicating the Grounds raised by the assessee on merits. 5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (Central) v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:– Page 3 of 4 Smt. Bharatkumar Rajashree “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…

Yasmeen Shaikh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1264/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2015-16 Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh, Income Tax Officer, 3093, Sobha Carnation, Ward-5(3)(5), Bellandur Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Bellandur, Vs. Bengaluru-560103. Pan No : Aovps3088K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Sunain Bhatia, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Is An Appeal Filed By Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) (Nfac) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2015-16 On 18/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 25/01/2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below, Insofar As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac Erred In Disposing Off The Appeal Holding That The Appellant Has Not Complied

For Appellant: Ms. Sunain Bhatia, Advocate
Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

…. CIT(A) has not served the notices on the above referred email address mentioned by the assessee. Therefore, there was valid reason for non-compliance. 7. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (Central) v/s Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:– “8. From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to hi…

Meena Dattatray Fatak, Pune vs. ITO Ward 7(3), Pune

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

ITA 581/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)

…sessee and after considering the submissions/evidences 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 provide updated 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 set…

Surana Bhansali Developers, Pune vs. ITO, Circle-5, Pune

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

ITA 1438/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1438/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Surana Bhansali Developers Vs. Assistant Commissioner 263 A Patil Plaza, of Income Tax, Near Saras Baug, Circle 5, Pune Swargate, Pune-411009, Maharashtra PAN: ABAFS9747H Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Rajiv Thakkar Respondent by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date of hearing : 16.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 14.08.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal a…