INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), PUNE, AKURDI, PUNE V. SHAMSUNDAR KALIRAM AGARWAL , PUNE

ITA 1428/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) which had set aside the assessment order and referred the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The original assessment was contested by the assessee, Shamsundar Kaliram Agarwal, for the assessment year 2018-19, where a significant discrepancy between the assessed income and the returned income was noted. The ITAT had earlier set aside the CIT(A)'s order for de novo adjudication, which the CIT(A) did not follow, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had misapplied the provisions of Section 251(1) of the Act, particularly the proviso applicable only to assessments made under section 144, which was not the case here as the assessment was made under section 143(3) read with section 144B.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 777595 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT BOBDE
• Keywords: Set aside; Peak credit
• Section: 144; 154

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”बी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / ITA No.1428/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(1), Pune. V s Shamsundar Kaliram 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1428/PUN/2025 [A] 2 23.12.2024. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in disposing rectification application by holding that it is not a matter of rectification without taking into consideration the fact that as per the newly inserted proviso to sub- of section 251 by the Finance Act, 2024 an order of assessment made under section 144 may set aside by Ld. CIT(A) and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment. However, in the present case the assessment order was passed u/s 147r.w.s. 144B of the Act which is not an ex-parte order. 2. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter any of the above grounds of appeal.” 2. At the outset of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. No written submission was filed. Earlier, on 10.07.2025 and 14.08.2025 no one appeared on behalf of the assessee and the case was adjourned. Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR for the Revenue filed a paper book. Ld.DR explained the case and facts to the Bench. Findings and Analysis : 4. We have heard ld.DR for the Revenue and perused the records. In the case of Assessee i.e. Shamsundar Kaliram Agarwal, Assessment Order for A.Y.2018-19 was passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 20.04.2021 assessing the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1428/PUN/2025 [A] 3 Total Income at Rs.50,80,52,140/-. The Returned income in this case was Rs.2,93,350/-. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the Assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A). 5. Ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] passed an order for A.Y.2018-19 u/s.250 of the Act, on 29.05.2023, directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the total income considering the peak credit in the accounts. Aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A)[NFAC], Revenue filed appeal before this Tribunal. 6. ITAT in ITA No.853/PUN/2023 for A.Y.2018-19 heard the appeal on 14.03.2024 wherein both Assessee as well as Revenue was represented by their respective Authorised Representatives. The ITAT in ITA No.853/PUN/2023 pronounced the order on 14.03.2024. The relevant paragraph no.6 of the ITAT order in ITA No.853/PUN/2023 is reproduced here as under : “6, Per contra in the instant case, we find that the Ld. NFAC after considering the issue at length failed to adjudicate the issue conclusively in terms of section 250(6) of the Act but directed the Ld. AO for recomputing the total income in accordance with direction it appended therein. This directions to the Ld. AO in our considered view have effect of setting aside the original assessment therefore has suffered from clause (a) of s/s (1) of section 251 r.w.s. 250(6) of the Act. For the reasons without offering our comments on the merits of the case, we deem it fit to quash the directions by setting-aside the impugned order under challenge and remand the matter back to the file of Ld. NFAC for de-nova adjudication after according not more than three opportunities to the respondent assessee and pass a speaking order Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1428/PUN/2025 [A] 4 in terms of section 250(6) of the Act, ergo ordered accordingly. Thus, the grounds of the Revenue stands allowed.” 6.1 Thus, the ITAT in ITA No.853/PUN/2023 set-aside the order of ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] to ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] for denovo adjudication. 7. Then, the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] passed an order dated 23.12.2024, the relevant paragraph of the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC]’s order is reproduced as under : “The appellant has made various submissions during the course of appellate proceedings, and vide point no. 5 of the same has requested that the matter be remanded back to the Ld. AO in order for proper fact finding in this ex-parte assessment matter as per the powers granted to CIT(Appeals) by Finance Act, 2024. As per the amendment effective from 01.10.2024, considering the huge pendency of appeals and disputed tax demands at the CIT(A) stage, in cases where assessment order was passed as best judgment case u/s 144 of the Act, the CIT(A) has been empowered to set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the AO for making a fresh assessment, in appellate orders passed by CIT(A) on or after 01.10.2024. This instant case is where the assessee has not made compliances in assessment nor furnished requisite details before the Ld.A.O. Hence, it is a fit case where assessment needs to be set-aside and case referred back to the AO for making a fresh assessment. In order to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble ITAT and submissions as made by the appellant (Supra), the assessment order is set aside and case referred back to the AO for making a fresh assessment. 6. As a result, the assessment order is set aside and case referred back to the AO for making a fresh assessment.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1428/PUN/2025 [A] 5 7.1 Thus, ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] vide order dated 23.12.2024 while giving effect to the order of ITAT, set-aside the Assessment Order to the Assessing Officer for Fresh Assessment. Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue filed Rectification Application before the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC]. The ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] rejected Revenue’s Rectification Application vide order dated 28.03.2025. The relevant order of the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] is scanned and reproduced as under : Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1428/PUN/2025 [A] 6 8. Aggrieved by the order u/s.154 r.w.s 250 of the Act, Revenue has filed this appeal before this Tribunal. 9. In this case, ITAT vide its order dated 14.03.2024 had set- aside the order of ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] for denovo adjudication. Once ITAT has set-aside the order of ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] to ld.CIT(A)[NFAC], the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] has to follow the directions of ITAT and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] do not have any power to set it aside to the Assessing Officer. In this case, ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] has not followed the directions of the ITAT. The ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] has merely set-aside the Assessment Order to the Assessing Officer for Fresh Assessment, whereas ITAT had directed ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] to decide the issues raised by the Assessee afresh. Therefore, as per Section 251 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] has to decide each and every ground raised by the Assessee on merits. The ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] has power to call for information and to issue summons u/s.131 of the Act. However, in this case, ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] has not adjudicated the grounds, but merely directed Assessing Officer to frame Assessment Order Afresh. This is violation of directions issued by ITAT. This is also violation of Section 251 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1428/PUN/2025 [A] 7 10. Therefore, we are of the opinion that Revenue was right in filing Rectification Application before ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] as the mistake of not following the directions of ITAT was apparent from records. The ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] has erred in invoking the Amended Provision of Section 251 of the Act. The relevant Section 251(1) is reproduced here as under : “Powers of the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals). 251. (1) In disposing of an appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers— (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment : [Provided that where such appeal is against an order of assessment made under section 144, he may set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment;] 11. The ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] has erred in referring the Proviso to Section 251(1) of the Act. The Proviso to Section 251(1) is applicable only when Assessment Order is passed u/s.144 of the Act. In the case of the Assessee, Assessment Order was passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act. In the Assessment Order, it is specifically mentioned that Assessee appeared and filed Balance Sheet, Profit and Loss Account, Computation of Income and submitted that Assessee is engaged in the business of retail sale and purchase of Ayurvedic Products. Thus, it is evident from the Assessment Order that Assessment Order was not passed ex-parte u/s.144 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1428/PUN/2025 [A] 8 Therefore, the Proviso to Section 251(1) is not applicable in the case of Assessee. However, ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] in the order u/s.250 r.w.s. 254 of the Act, while giving effect of the order to the ITAT dated 14.03.2024 has relied on the Proviso to Section 251(1) of the Act, which was not applicable in the facts of the case. Another fact is that once ITAT has set-aside the order u/s.250 for denovo adjudication, the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] do not have any power to direct the Assessing Officer to frame Fresh Assessment. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] has erred, hence, we are of the opinion that Revenue has rightly moved Rectification Application before the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC]. Therefore, we are of the opinion that ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] should have allowed the Rectification Application of the Revenue. 12. In these facts and circumstances of the case, for all the elaborate reasons discussed above, ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] has erred in dismissing the Rectification Application filed by Revenue. 13. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the Grounds of Appeal raised by the Revenue are allowed. We direct the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] to follow the order of ITAT in ITA No.853/PUN/2023 wherein ITAT has set-aside the order of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1428/PUN/2025 [A] 9 ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] to ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] for denovo adjudication. Accordingly, we direct ld.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 found in Section 250(4) of the Act. Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 251 of the Act also makes it clear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an assessee files an appeal under Section 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact with effect from 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1428/PUN/2025 [A] 10 Assessing Officer and restore it to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) is coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer i.e. he can do all that Assessing Officer could do. Therefore just as it is not open to the Assessing Officer to not complete the assessment by allowing the assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. 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) to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.” Unquote. 13.1 Thus, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has categorically held that ld.CIT(A) has to decide the appeal on merit and ld.CIT(A) does not have any power to dismiss appeal for non-prosecution. 13.2 Accordingly, ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] is directed to decide the appeal filed by the Assessee against the Assessment Order dated 20.04.2021 on merits. 14. Therefore, grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are allowed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1428/PUN/2025 [A] 11 15. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30 September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- MS.ASTHA CHANDRA Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददिधंक / Dated : 30 Sep, 2025/ SGR आदेशकीप्रनिनलनपअग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपऩलधर्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. नवभधगऩयप्रनिनिनर्, आयकर अपऩलऩय अनर्करण, “बऩ” बेंच, पपणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गधर्ाफ़धइल / Guard File. आदेशधिपसधर / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपऩलऩय अनर्करण, पपणे/ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "