ABBAS FAKHRUDDIN KACHWALA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, AHMEDNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1187/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 September 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. To advance substantial justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with an opportunity to present its case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was delayed by 102 days. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 20,90,000/- as unexplained investment in immovable property. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A), resulting in an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO as unexplained investment is justified, and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69,Section 44AD,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE

Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Smt. R.M. Brindha
Hearing: 29.07.2026Pronounced: 08.09.2026

आदेश की प्रनिललपप अग्रेपर्ि /Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. विभागीय प्रतितिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “SMC" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, "SMC" Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ड फाइल / Guard File.

आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER,

// True Copy// सहायक रजिस्ट्रार/Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →