SUJATA MAHENDRA NAWANDER,JALNA V. ITO WARD 3, JALNA

ITA 1568/PUN/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sujata Mahendra Nawander against the order of the ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Bhubaneswar, which was initially based on an assessment order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention of the assessee was the unjustified addition of Rs. 450,000 to her income, alleged to be from undisclosed sources used for an investment in a plot. The assessee argued that the addition was based solely on the statement of a vendor, without any incriminating documents or evidence. Additionally, the assessee challenged the legality of the order passed without proper service of notice under the IT Act, 1961, and the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealing particulars of income. The Tribunal noted that the ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-compliance without addressing the merits, which was contrary to the legal provisions mandating a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711966 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Other Referred Cases: Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP P SATHE
• Assessee Lawyers: HARSHIT S KABRA VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1568/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sujata Mahendra Nawander, 19, Manmohan Vidya Nagar, Mantha Road, Jalna-431203. Maharashtra. V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Jalna. PAN: AEPPN7756M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Harshit S Kabra – AR(Virtual) Revenue by Shri Sandeep P Sathe – JCIT(DR) Date of hearing 14/07/2025 Date of pronouncement 22/07/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by Assessee against the order of ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Bhubaneswar passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2010-11 dated 09.05.2025, emanating from order u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 18.03.2015. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1568/PUN/2025 [A] 2 “1. Addition of Rs. 450000/-. The learned Assessing Officer is not justified in making addition of Rs.450000/- by alleging that I have made investment in plot from undisclosed sources during the year under appeal. The addition has been made on the basis of statement of Shri Rajesh Bhagwandas Soni, vendor, during his assessment. Nothing has found or seized any incriminating document or cogent supportive evidence regarding on money paid by me. 2. Legality of Order passed without service of notice under IT Act,1961. The learned Assessing Officer has passed the Assessment Order without service of notice is not legal and bad in law. The assessment order passed u/s. 144 may kindly be set aside. 3. Penalty Proceedings. Whether the learned A.O. has justified in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) for concealed the particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars, which may kindly be dropped. 4. The appellant may kindly be allowed to add and amend the grounds of appeal.” Submission of Ld.AR : 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. Ld.AR also submitted that ground no.3 and 4 i.e.legal grounds which ought to be filed before the ld.CIT(A), but did not file the same for adjudication before ld.CIT(A). Hence, ld.AR requested that one more opportunity may kindly be provided for hearing before the ld.CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1568/PUN/2025 [A] 3 Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A). 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 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. 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 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. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1568/PUN/2025 [A] 4 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 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. 5.1 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. 5.2 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. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1568/PUN/2025 [A] 5 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. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22 July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- MS.ASTHA CHANDRA Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 22 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, “एस एम सी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "