Case Law Details
Vishnu Kumar Sinha (HUF) Vs ACIT (ITAT Raipur)
In this case CIT(Appeals) had disposed off the appeal for non-prosecution and had failed to apply his mind to the issue which did arise from the impugned order and has been assailed by the assessee before him. 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(A) remains under a statutory obligation to apply his mind to all the issues which arises from the impugned order before him. As per mandate of law, the CIT(Appeals) is not vested with any power to summarily dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT RAIPUR
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-II, Raipur (C.G.) dated 18.07.2018, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), dated 12.03.2015 for assessment year 2012-13. Before us the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Raipur erred in confirming the disallowance of claim of Rs.6,01,692/- u/s.54F being proportionate expenditure of Rs.9,73,800/- further incurred after purchase of new house to make it habitable.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
