DILIP BRAMHADEO MANE,SOLAPUR vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, SOLAPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the NFAC had not dealt with the merits of the appeal and had wrongly dismissed it for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed a return declaring significant agricultural income. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment due to cash deposits for property purchase and rejected the agricultural income claim for lack of supporting documents. The NFAC confirmed the AO's action for non-prosecution.
What were the issues?
Whether the NFAC correctly dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits of the case.
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 20.02.2023 for the assessment year 2013-14.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income under the head “Income from other sources” and “agricultural income”. The Return of Income for the assessment year 2013-14 was filed declaring total income of Rs.94,037/- and agricultural income of Rs.20,55,400/-. 3. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and issued notice to the appellant u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on receipt of the information that the appellant had paid Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.50,00,000/- during the financial year 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively to the seller for purchase of immovable property. In response to notice u/s 148, the appellant had not responded, therefore, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer by bringing into tax the cash deposits made by the assessee in the bank account bearing No.11002840000001 of Solapur District Central Co-op. Bank and also rejecting the explanation of the assessee that the source of cash deposits and agricultural income derived on the cultivation of sugarcane by citing that the appellant had failed to file the details of land holding records in Form 7/12, Form 8A etc. in support of the agricultural income.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026