RATILAL KARMSHI PATEL,SATARA V. ITO WARD 1, SATARA

ITA 1399/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ratilal Karmshi Patel, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2022-23. The primary contention was the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance with notices, without addressing the merits of the case. The appellant argued that the non-compliance was due to genuine reasons. The Tribunal referenced a decision by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, which clarified that the CIT(A) is obligated to adjudicate the appeal on its merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's request for a fair hearing on the substantive issues raised.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 708892 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)(Bombay)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH SRIVASTVA
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITYA RAMCHANDRAN
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital Gains

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1399/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ratilal Karmshi Patel, D-70, MIDC, Taswade, Umbraj, Taluka Karad, District Satara – 415109. Maharashtra. V s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Satara. PAN: ABPPP6230R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Aditya Ramchandran – AR Revenue by Shri Akhilesh Srivastva – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 10/07/2025 Date of pronouncement 16/07/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: The Assessee has filed an appeal against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 10.03.2025 for A.Y.2022-23, emanating from the order u/s.143(3) read with section 144B of the Act. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.1399/PUN/2025 [A] 2 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appeal of the appellant before the CIT (A) may please be restored back and the non-compliance of the appellant in respect of the notices issued by the CIT (A) may please be excused as it was for the genuine reasons 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT (A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without dealing with the grounds of appeal raised before him on merits. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of long-term capital gains of 1,17,41,327 arising on account of the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration received upon sale of the property by the appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.” 2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) without discussing each and every ground and merits of the case and merely dismissed for non-compliance. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC]. Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is observed from the order of the ld.CIT(A) that the ld.CIT(A) did not ITA No.1399/PUN/2025 [A] 3 decide the grounds of appeal on merit but merely dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance. The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits. 4.1 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)(Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) as under : Quote, “8.From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of 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 ITA No.1399/PUN/2025 [A] 4 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. 5. 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. 6. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we set-aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. ITA No.1399/PUN/2025 [A] 5 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16 July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- MS.ASTHA CHANDRA Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 16 July, 2025/ SGR आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "