VYANKATRAO MANSINGRAO SASTE,AT NIRGUDI TAL PHALTAN SATARA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 3 SATARA, AAYKAR BHAWAN, MANJUNATH MANOR, PAWAI NAKA, SATARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2625/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 August 2026AY 2015-166 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in restoring the issue to the AO for a fresh assessment. This provided the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case with requisite details.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in agricultural activities, did not file a return of income. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings based on cash deposits and made an addition of Rs. 29,17,400/- as unexplained money. The CIT(A) set aside the matter to the AO for fresh assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the reassessment proceedings were initiated within the limitation period and in accordance with procedural requirements, and whether the CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment order instead of quashing it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 69A,Section 149(1)(b),Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri R C Doshi
For Respondent: Shri Avinash Karpe

PER R.K. PANDA, VP:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.03.2026 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2015-16. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the agricultural activities. The assessee has not filed his return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Information was available with the department regarding the cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee. Therefore, notice u/s 148A(b) dated 21.03.2022 was issued. Thereafter, an order u/s 148A(d) dated 02.04.2022 was passed and a notice u/s 148 dated 02.04.2022 was issued. Thereafter, statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued in response to which the assessee filed his reply and submitted the 2 copy of bank statement, sales registers, cash book, income certificate issued by the state government and land ownership document by submitting Form 8A and 7/12 extract. The Assessing Officer thereafter again issued notice u/s 142(1) to ascertain the exact amount of agricultural income in the hands of the assessee and in order to verify the sale of fruits to the various customers and asked the assessee to furnish the following details:

3.

However, there was no response from the side of the assessee. The Assessing Officer therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 144 and made addition of Rs.29,17,400/- as unexplained money by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act.

4.

In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:

3 4

5.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: On the facts of and in law-

1.

The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax has erred both in facts and in law in setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer instead of quashing the Assessment order where a. The reassessment proceedings itself were initiated after the expiry of limitation period as per Proviso (1) to Section 149(1)(b) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 and all the proceedings emanating therefrom including assessment, whether under section 143(2) or under section 144, were void-ab-initio and bad in law. It is prayed that Assessment Order under section 144 should be quashed since it emanates from reassessment proceedings which were bad-in-law and illegal. b. The notice is issued in contravention of provisions of section 149(1)(b) i.e., the amount of income escaping Assessment does not exceed INR 50,00,000/- since the notice under section 148 is issued after 3 years. c. Notice u/s 148 dated 04/04/2022 is issued by juri ictional assessing officer and not by Faceless Assessment office as required by section 151A of IT Act, 1961 and CBDT scheme for faceless reassessment dated 29/03/2022. d. The Learned Assessing Officer supplied only the information and not the material received by him and relied upon by him as required under the provisions of IT Act, 1961. e. Copy of the approval given by the prescribed authority was not enclosed as required by CBDT guidelines and various judicial pronouncement. f. The approval accorded is mechanical one and without application of mind. g. Notice u/s 148A(b), u/s 148 and order u/s 148A(d) bear the same reference no. of approval by prescribed authority and is not in accordance with the rules, act and guidelines prescribed. h. The juri iction assumed and reopening of amount is not in accordance with provisions of IT Act, 1961. 2. Without prejudice to the above grounds the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax has erred both in facts and in law in setting aside the order of the Assessing Officer without taking into consideration all the facts and submissions made by the Appellant.

3.

The appellant request for admission of additional evidences if any requires in support of above grounds of appeal.

5

4.

The appellant craves, leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal.

6.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that during the course of assessment proceedings due to non-submission of various details by the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144. We find in appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on this issue since he has provided an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details and the Assessing Officer has been directed to make a fresh assessment on all issues. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th August, 2026. (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 13th August, 2026 GCVSR Gajjala Chinna Chinna Venkata Subba Reddy Venkata Subba Reddy Date: 2026.08.14 10:21:22 +05'30'

6 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent

2.3.

The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune

4.

DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

////

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →