TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 675
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the assessee being aggrieved by the "impugned assessment order" prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before the Ld. CIT(A) who by the "impugned order" has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the grounds and reasons stated therein. 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the "impugned order" has preferred the instant second appeal before this Tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in Form No.36 against the "impugned order" which are as under:- "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal even when there was justifiable reason for delay in filing of the said appeal 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs. 17,11,287/- to the total income of the appellant on account of rejection of deduction claimed by the appellant under section 80P of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submissions made before him 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs. 2,32,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....37 of the Act without properly appreciating the facts of the case and submissions made before him 9. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter and modify the grounds of appeal as taken by it". 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 07.07.2025 when the Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee appeared before us and interalia brought to our notice that the "impugned assessment order" u/s 143(3) of the Act is a bi-parte order whereas "impugned order" u/s 250 of the Act is in violation of the principles of natural justice, illegal, bad in law and deserves to be set aside. The Ld. AR then interalia contended that the "impugned assessment order" is dated 29.12.2017 and that first appeal in terms of Section 246A was filed on 21.09.2023 and total number of delay is 2066 days. The Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the first appeal as and by way of the "impugned order" did not condone the delay in filing the first appeal under the Act and dismissed the appeal u/s 249(3) of the Act. The Ld. AR for the assessee contended that the assessee's CA did not file the appeal despite the instructions and further due to several FIR is filed against the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r on 15.10.2019 directing all office bearers of the assessee to vacate their office with immediate effect as a result of which functioning of the assessee society came to a stand still. Subsequently upon representation to the Dy. Commissioner, Cooperative Society, Dhar for a reinvestigation it was found that no irregularities had been committed in the assessee society. The State Government too supported assessee society in a PIL. EOW (Police) too found no irregularity by the Society. On 21.10.2022 the Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Society restored the assessee society. High Court of MP in WP No.9623 of 2023 vide order dated 25.08.2023 quashed all seven FIR and allowed the writ petition. After that elections were conducted and on 13.09.2023 assessee society recommenced its full-fledged activities. It is at this point of time the assessee society came to know that several orders were passed both in assessment and in the appellate proceedings. The assessee society was advised to file appeal in case of Assessment Year 2015-16. The Ld. AR submitted that it was due to aforesaid reasons that there was a delay in filing the first appeal. Reliance was placed on ITAT, Chhattisgarh Bench orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raw 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 CIT(A) 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." 3.2 The Ld. AR then submitted that the "impugned order" should be set aside as has been done in own case of the asses....