SHRI GANESH SHATRUGHNA BHAVLE,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10(2), PUNE, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the NFAC's order dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution was illegal as there was no clear evidence of sufficient opportunities of hearing being granted to the assessee. The matter was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not file a regular return of income. Upon receiving information about interest income and bank deposits, a notice under section 148 was issued, to which no return was filed. The assessment was completed ex-parte under section 144 r.w.s. 147.
What were the issues?
Whether the NFAC properly granted sufficient opportunities of hearing to the assessee before dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, and if the dismissal violated principles of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 09.06.2023 for the assessment year 2011-12.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular return of income under the provisions of section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) was filed by the assessee. However, on receipt of the information that the Rs.2,23,327/- from Suvarnyug Sahakari Bank Ltd. during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2018. In response to notice u/s 148, no return of income was filed by the appellant. During the course of assessment proceedings, it is further found that the appellant also made deposits of Rs.12,05,927/- in the Vishweshvar Sahakari Bank Ltd., Pune. Based on this information, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(2), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 26.11.2018 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act at a total income of Rs.12,98,350/-. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was before the NFAC, who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Therefore, I proceed to dispose of the matter after hearing the ld. Sr. DR.
More judgments on Section 139
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Radhakishan Potharajula, Karim Nagar vs ITO (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 2340/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026