PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-DHAMTARI, DHAMTARI

ITA 156/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, who appealed against the order of the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-Dhamtari, which was later upheld by the CIT(A). The primary contention was regarding the validity of the reassessment under sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on alleged unexplained deposits in the assessee's bank account. The ITO had reopened the assessment for AY 2013-14, adding Rs. 20,46,024 as undisclosed business income, which the assessee contested. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance by the assessee, which led to the current appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT criticized the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal without merit consideration and remanded the case for a thorough examination of the issues raised.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 46712 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: Lakhmani Mewaldas (1976) (SC), Shodiman Investments (P) Ltd (2018) (Bom), Meenakshi Overseas (P) Ltd (2017) (Del HC), Smt Sudesh Rani (2023) (Chd-Trib), Jai Prakash Gupta (2021) (Kol-Trib), Shri Ram Singh (2008) (Raj), Prosperous Buildcon (P) Ltd (2023) (Del HC), SHREE BALAJI WOOLLEN MILLS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT, DELHI 'G' BENCH, PRAVEEN KUMAR PRUTHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITAT, DELHI 'F BENCH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. WHITE INDUSTRIES AUSTRALIA LTD ITAT, BENCH 'C KOLKATA, JAI INTERNATIONAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH, RAMESH SHARMA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT, DELHI 'F' BENCH, ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, U-LIKE PROMOTERS (P) LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT, DELHI 'H' BENCH
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Competent authority; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Non compliance; Borrowed satisfaction; FORM 26AS
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 250; 143(1); 271(1)(c); 251; 13; 246A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ रायपुर में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 156/RPR/2024 नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pradeep Kumar Agrawal, H.No.19, Ramjanki Mandir, Sadar Bazar, Dhamtari-493773 PAN No. ACHPA6856B .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Dhamtari, Shankardan Road, Vill-Haraftrai, Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh 493773 ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CA. Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 23.12.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 26.12.2024 2 Pradeep Kumar Agrawal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari ITA No.156/RPR/2024 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 Assessment Centre, Delhi, dated 19.02.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under Sec. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 26.03.2022 for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reopening u/s148/147 is invalid as based on borrowed satisfaction of escaped income of Rs 4,09,20,476 on the count of deposits in HDFC bank, which, in fact, includes Rs. 3,92,99,344 i.e., receipts from debtors against accounted sales; it is only reason to suspect merely for verifying the deposits RTGS credits into bank, there is no live link/ nexus between the \"information of deposits into bank” & ‘formation of believe’ for alleged escaped income of Rs.4,09,20,476, in absence of pre- requisite condition for assuming jurisdiction u/s147, reopening w/148/147 would be invalid, liable to be quashed; relied on Lakhmani Mewaldas (1976) (SC); Shodiman Investments (P) Ltd (2018) (Bom); Meenakshi Overseas (P) Lad (2017) (Del HC); Smt Sudesh Rani (2023) (Chd-Trib); Jai Prakash Gupta (2021) (Kol-Trib); 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reassessment made u/s147 is invalid as there is addition made of Rs.20,46,924 on count of undisclosed business income (i.c., u/s 28) which is not the issue of the \"reasons recorded\"; the 'very basis of reopening was 'unverifiable/ unexplained deposits/ credits into bank' (ie, u/s 69A/68) and no addition made on the 'very Issue; addition made on 'independent issue' of 'business income', which is not the part of the \"reasons recorded earlier, is not permissible in the eyes of law, reassessment made u/s147 would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Shri Ram Singh (2008) (Raj); Prosperous Buildcon (P) Ltd (2023) (Del HC). 3 Pradeep Kumar Agrawal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari ITA No.156/RPR/2024 3. On the facts circumstances of the case and in law, approval granted u/s151(1) by PCIT is invalid as PCIT has not pointed out the mistake of the AO in proposal form u/s 151(1) i.e.. incorrect amount of escaped income of Rs.4,01,95,400 which is on 'cash withdrawal from bank; while as per annexure to the proposal form, escaped income is Rs.4,09,20,476 on the different issue of 'cash deposits into bank'; approval granted u/s151(1) without application of mind in a mechanical manner without verifying the facts/issue involved; in absence of a valid approval granted u/s151(1) by PCIT as mandated by law u/s151; impugned reopening u/s148/147 would be invalid; is liable to be quashed; relied on Kalpana Shantilal Haria (2017) (Bom); Kartik Sureshchandra Gandhi (2023) (Bom HC); Ram Nebhnani Huf (2023) (Bom). 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.20,46,024 which is on adhoc basis of 5% of credits into bank of Rs.4,09,20,476 which includes Rs.3,92,99,344 which is receipts from debtors against accounted/disclosed sales in the books of account u/s44AB; sales has been accepted; books has not been rejected; addition is merely on presumption & surmises, is not justified and is liable to be deleted. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.20,46,024 is unjustified and is liable to be deleted. 6. The appellant craves leave, to add, urge, alter, modify or withdraw any grounds before or at the time of hearing.” 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for AY 2013-14 on 29.11.2013, declaring his total income at Rs.4,94,455/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act. The assessment was framed by the AO vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 26.03.2022, wherein, after making addition of Rs.20,46,024/- i.e. @ 5% of the total credits of Rs.4.09 crores (approx.) appearing in the assessee company’s bank account with HDFC, the total income was determined at Rs.25,40,479/-. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before CIT(A). As the assessee despite having been afforded five opportunities did not participate in the 4 Pradeep Kumar Agrawal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari ITA No.156/RPR/2024 proceedings before the first appellate authority, therefore, the latter was constrained to dismiss the appeal vide an ex-parte order. For the sake of clarity, the observations made by the CIT(A) are culled out as under: “3. The appellant’s appeal was fixed for hearing on the following dates: SL. No. DATE OF NOTICE DATE OF HEARING REMARKS 1. 04/08/2023 11/08/2023 No reply 2. 09.11/2023 16/11/2023 No reply 3. 05/01/2024 12/01/2024 No reply 4. 02/02/2024 09/02/2024 No reply 5. 09/02/2024 15/02/2024 No reply There was no compliance to above notices which were sent on the email id, registered under e-fling portal. Despite given repeated opportunities of being heard, there has been no compliance to the notices. It is apparent that the appellant is not interested in pursuing his appeal. In the absence of any submission from the appellant, the grounds of appeal are decided on merits on the basis of facts available on record. 4. Facts of the case: The appellant filed the return of income for AY 2013-14 on 29/11/2013, declaring total income of Rs. 4,94,455/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act, on the basis of information received from the ITO (Inv), Raipur, after recording reason and after approval from the competent authority. The information received was as under: “The assessee's bank accounts were mainly credited through RTGS and subsequently followed by cash withdrawals and the total credits made in bank accounts of the assessee were Rs. 4,09,20,476 out of which total cash withdrawals were Rs. 4,01,95,400. The assesse has not complied to the Notices issued by the Investigation Wing of Raipur.\" Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the IT Act, dated: 30/03/2021 was issued and served upon the appellant through registered mail id, requiring the appellant to file the return of income 30 days, for which the appellant was non-complied. Further, notices u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, calling for details with regard to subject matter was issued, for which the appellant was as usual non-compliant. As the appellant was non-responsive during the assessment proceedings, a show cause notice along with a copy of earlier notice u/s 148 and u/s 142(1) of the IT Act was served upon the appellant through verification unit for which the appellant complied on 08/03/2022 and submitted copy of financial statement, computation of income and copy of Form 26AS, which was duly considered by the AO, 5 Pradeep Kumar Agrawal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari ITA No.156/RPR/2024 requesting the appellant to submit the remaining information on or before of 15th of March, 2022 under principle of natural justice. However, the appellant did not submit the details called for till the date of completion of assessment. As the appellant was non-responsive, the case was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 1448 of the IT Act on 26/03/2022 as under: \"The assessee filed Return of Income for the A.Y.2013-14 on 29.11.2013 admitting total income at Rs. 4,94,455. The assessee is engaged in trading business of paddy, rice, other bi-product and transport work. The return was processed u/s.143(1) on 31.08.2018. 2. In this case, there is credible information shared by the Income Tax Officer (Inv.). Raipur that the assessee's bank accounts were mainly credited through RTGS and subsequently followed by cash withdrawals and the total credits made in bank accounts of the assessee were Rs. 4,09,20,476 out of which total cash withdrawals were Rs. 4,01,95,400. The assessee has not complied to the Notices issued by the Investigation Wing of Raipur. 3. The case was reopened u/s. 147 of the I.T. Act for the A.Y.2013-14 by issue of Notice u/s. 148 dated 30.03.2021 after recording the reasons and approval of the Competent Authority. The said Notice was duly served upon the assessee on 30.03.2021 through registered e-mail. The assessee was required to file Return of Income within 30 days from the date of service of Notice. However, the assessee had not filed Return of income in response to the Notice. Notice u/s. 142(1) was issued on 26.11.2021 requesting to furnish ITR filed in response to Notice u/s.148 and to explain the sources for credits in bank accounts. The assessee has again not complied with the Notice. 4. The case was transferred to NaFAC under Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019 The following Notices u/s. 142(1) had been issued along with a Questionnaire calling for information:- Sl No. Date of issue of notice u/s 142(1) Date of Compliance Document Number (DIN) 1 16.12.2021 31.12.2021 ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2021- 22/1037877934(1) 2 05.01.2022 13.01.2022 ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2021 22/1038448158(1) 3 18.01.2022 25.01.2022 ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2021- 22/1038828084(1) All the Notices were served upon the assessee on his e-filing account with www.incometax.gov.in portal as well as on its email registered with the Income Tax Department. The assessee failed to submit the requisite information. 6 Pradeep Kumar Agrawal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari ITA No.156/RPR/2024 5. Since the assessee is non-responsive, final opportunity letter dated 31.01.2022 was issued requesting the assessee to furnish the information on or before 04.02.2022 failing which the assessment would be completed under section 144 of the I.T. Act. The case was referred to the Verification Unit through Insight Portal for manual service of the Show-cause Notice and earlier Notices issued u/s 148/142)1) of the Act. In turn the Verification Unit dispatched to the assessee by Speed vide Consignment No. EC228407761IN and the same was delivered on 10.02.20220. However, there was no response from the assessee. In this connection, Show-cause Notice u/s. 144 of the Act was issued on 07.03.2022 requiring the assessee to submit his response by 14.03.2022. 6. The assessee filed response on 08.03.2022 and filed Financial statement of computation, Form 26AS The 2022senin his letter dated 08.03.2022 stated that copy of Return of Income filed in response to Notice w/s.148 along with computation and financial statements are enclosed herewith. In this connection, it is clarified that the assessee has not filed Return of income in response to Notice u/s. 148 of the Act. He never slated the Return already filed may be treated as Return filed in response to Notice u/s 148 of the I.T. 24.03.2018. The assessee has further stated that the remaining points are under preparation and shall be furnished in next 07 days 7. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee was allowed time to furnish the remaining information on or before 15.03.2022. However, the assessee has again chosen not to furnish the information. As can be seen from the sequence of events, it appears that the assessee was not concerned to comply to the Notices issued u/s.148/142(1) of the IT. Act. The assessee was given enough, sufficient and reasonable opportunities to submit the requisite information. In view of the above non compliances from the assessee, there is no option left but to complete the time barring assessment based on the material available on record and in the manner provided in the provisions of Section 144 of the I.T. Act. 8. As per the information shared by the Investigation Wing, Raipur, the assessee's bank accounts were credited with an amount of Rs. 4,09,20,476 and followed by total cash withdrawals of Rs 4,01,95,400 during the F.Y. 2012-13 relevant to A.Y.2013-14. The assessee was requested to furnish all bank accounts maintained during the year and was requested to explain the sources for credits made along with documentary evidence. However, the assessee failed to furnish the necessary information in spite of several opportunities vide letters/Notices issued from time to time. The sources for the credits in bank accounts remained unexplained. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in paddy, rice, other bi-products and transport. There are total credits of Rs. 4,09,20,476 during the year and taking into account the nature of business of the assessee and facts of the case, 5% of total credits of Rs. 4,09,20,476 is held as business income of the assessee which comes to Rs.20,46,024 and the same is added back to the total income of the assessee for the Assessment Year under consideration. Having regard to the addition made, I am satisfied that the assessee is liable for initiation of penalty proceedings w/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for under-reporting of income. 9. The total income of the assessee is computed as under.- 7 Pradeep Kumar Agrawal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari ITA No.156/RPR/2024 Total Income returned Rs.4,94,455 Add: As discussed above Rs. 20,46,024 TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED Rs.25,40,479 9.1. A Draft Assessment Order (the body of this Assessment Order except this paragraph) was sent to the assessee with Show Cause Notice dated 22.03.2022 to file response in respect of addition made in the Draft Assessment Order by 25.03.2022. The assessee has filed response on 22.03.2022 and enclosed bank statements. The assessee was given ample opportunities to furnish the information vide Notices u/s. 142(1), Final Opportunity letter and Show-cause letter as referred to above. As stated above, the assessee vide letter dated 08.03.2022 has stated that the remaining information shall be furnished in the next 7 days. However, he has not furnished the complete information. Further, the assessee has not furnished any reply to the above addition made in the Draft Assessment Order. It is, therefore, presumed that the assessee has no objection to assess total income as per Draft Assessment Order. Accordingly, the total income is assessed at Rs.25,40,479 u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Interest u/s.234A/2348 charged as per Act. Demand Notice u/s. 156 is issued accordingly. Issued Penalty Notice u/s. 271(1)(c) for under-reporting of income. Penalty Notice u/s. 271(1)(b) for failure to comply Notice u/s.142(1) dated 26.11.2021, 16.12.2021, 05.01.2022 and 18.01.2022 issued separately\". Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the appellant filed the present appeal with various grounds of appeal. Upon receipt of the appeal of the appellant, the case was posted for hearing on various dates vide this office notice as mentioned in para no. 3. However the appellant was non-complaint to all the notices. 5. The Appellant has remained non-compliant during the appellate proceedings and has not provided any concrete evidence relating to the addition made by the AO during the course of assessment, for which the assesse filed an appeal, rebutting the same with various grounds of appeal. Thus the appellant has not been able to controvert the stand taken by die of appeal. Thus the appellant has not been able to controvert the stand taken by the Assessing Officer during the Appellate proceedings. The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in the well-known dictum, “VIGILANTIBUS NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT”. Therefore, the undersigned sees no reason to interfere with the orders of the Assessing Officer. Thus, the appeal raised by appellant is dismissed. 6. Further, sec.250(6) expressly embodies such provision, if an assessee fails to appear before the CIT(A) and fails to submit the relevant documents, the CIT(A) is restricted to the disposals of the appeal based on the merits available in the record. 7. This stand was furthered by the High Court in the following Judgements. 8 Pradeep Kumar Agrawal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari ITA No.156/RPR/2024 i) SHREE BALAJI WOOLLEN MILLS vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT, DELHI 'G' BENCH. ITA. No. 1238 & 1239/Del/2011; Asst. yr. 2005-06 ii) PRAVEEN KUMAR PRUTHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITAT, DELHI \"F BENCH ITA. No. 478/Del/2011; Asst. yr. 1999-2000 iii) ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX vs. WHITE INDUSTRIES AUSTRALIA LTD ITAT, BENCH 'C KOLKATA ITA No. 507/Kol/2010; Asst yr. 1992-93 iv) JAI INTERNATIONAL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH, ITA No. 138/id/2018; Asst. yr. 2012-13 v) RAMESH SHARMA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT, DELHI 'F' BENCH, ITA No. 2911/Del/2013; Asst. yr. 2006-07 vi) ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, Misc. Civil Case No. 302 of 1991 vii) U-LIKE PROMOTERS (P) LTD. vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT, DELHI 'H' BENCH. ITA Nos. 1569 to 1572/Del/2009 and 1377 to 1379/Del/2012: Asst. yrs. 1998-99 to 2004-05 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 4. The assesse company being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 5. We have heard the learned authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions. 9 Pradeep Kumar Agrawal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari ITA No.156/RPR/2024 6. Shri Sunil Agrawal, Learned authorized representative (for short, Ld. AR) for the assesse, at the threshold, submitted that the CIT(A) had grossly erred in dismissing the appeal vide an ex-parte order without dealing with the specific grounds based on which, the impugned additions made by the AO were assailed before him. The Ld. AR to buttress his aforesaid claim had taken us through the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. Per contra, Dr. Priyanka Patel, learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, Sr. DR) submitted that the assessee consistently had adopted a lackadaisical approach not only before the CIT(A) but also in the course of the assessment proceedings. The Ld. Sr. DR has taken us through the order of the CIT(A) and the assessment order to support her aforesaid claim. 8. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee despite having been put to notice about hearing of appeal on five occasions i.e. (i) 04.08.2023; (ii) 09.11.2023; (iii) 05.01.2024; (iv) 02.02.2024 and (v) 09.02.2024 had failed to participate in the proceedings before the first appellate authority. Also, as stated by the Ld. DR, and rightly so, the assessee had failed to fully comply with the notices issued by the A.O u/ss. 148/142(1) of the Act. At the same time, we are unable to find favour with the manner, in which, the CIT(Appeals) had summarily disposed of the appeal without specifically adverting to the issues based on which the impugned order of assessment was assailed by the assessee before him. All that we find in the order is a mere re-production of the assessment order and there is no whisper qua the issue on which the assessee had challenged the addition before 10 Pradeep Kumar Agrawal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari ITA No.156/RPR/2024 him. We, say so, for the reason that the assesse vide ground of appeal no. 2, had specifically assailed the validity of the order passed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 26.03.2022 on the ground that the copy of the “reasons to believe” were not made available to him. We are unable to comprehend that now when the assessee had assailed the validity of the assessment order, then why the first appellate authority had refrained from calling for the record and adjudicating the same. Although, we deprecate the lackadaisical conduct of the assessee as can be gathered from the orders of the lower authorities, but at the same time cannot remain oblivion of the fact that the CIT(Appeals) while disposing off the appeal for non-prosecution had failed to apply his mind to the issues which did arise from the impugned order and was assailed by the assessee before him. 9. We are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the manner in which the appeal of the assessee has been disposed off by the CIT(Appeals). In our considered view, once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(Appeals), it becomes obligatory on his 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. In fact, a perusal of Sec.251(1)(a) and (b), as well as the \"Explanation\" to Sec.251(2) of the Act reveals that the CIT(Appeals) remains under a statutory obligation to apply his mind to all the issues which arises from the impugned order before him. As per the mandate of law the CIT(Appeals) is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT Vs. 11 Pradeep Kumar Agrawal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari ITA No.156/RPR/2024 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 same to him as found in Sec. 250 of the Act. Further, Sec. 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. Sec. 251(1)(a) and (h) 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-s. (2) of s. 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 s. 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 w.e.f. 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the AO and restore it to the AO for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CITIA) are co-terminus with that of the AO i.e. he can do all that A.O could do. Therefore, just as it is not open to the AO 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 s. 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Sec. 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.\" 10. We, thus, not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(Appeals) for non-prosecution, therefore, set-aside his order with a direction to dispose off the same on merits. Needless to say, the CIT(Appeals) 12 Pradeep Kumar Agrawal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari ITA No.156/RPR/2024 shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in the course of the de-novo appellate proceedings. 11. As we have restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, therefore, we refrain from dealing with the merits of the case based on which the impugned additions have been assailed before us, which, thus, are left open. 12. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for its statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in open court on 26th day of December, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; दिनाांक / Dated : 26th December, 2024. *#Hem/SB आदेश की प्रनिललपप अग्रेपर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 (C.G) 4. ववभागीय प्रतततनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, रायपुर बेंच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गार्ड फ़ाइल / Guard File आिेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. 13 Pradeep Kumar Agrawal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari ITA No.156/RPR/2024 Date 1 Draft dictated on 23.12.2024 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 24.12.2024 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed before the second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by second Member AM/JM 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of dispatch of order 14 Pradeep Kumar Agrawal Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Dhamtari ITA No.156/RPR/2024 "