M/S VASAN NARAYAN NIMBALKAR (HUF),PUNE vs. ITO WD-5(1), PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to substantiate its case. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and decide in accordance with law.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an HUF, declared Rs. 20.00 lakh under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016 but paid only Rs. 8,25,000/-. The Assessing Officer added the entire Rs. 20.00 lakh as unexplained income. The assessee paid the shortfall and interest before the assessment order but failed to comply before the CIT(A), leading to dismissal.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) should have dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the subsequent compliance by the assessee, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present its case.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 03.12.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment order dated 17.05.2023 passed u/s.147 of the Act.
When the appeal called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment petition was moved. Even on the previous dates of hearing fixed on 23.04.2026 and 18.05.2026 there was no appearance from the side of assessee. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with 2 M/s. Vasan Narayan Nimbalkar (HUF)
the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and material available on record.
We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessee is an HUF and filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-
Case of the assessee reopened on the basis of information that assessee has opted for Income Declaration Scheme 2016 declaring a sum of Rs.20.00 lakh under the head Cash, however, the assessee paid only Rs.8,25,000/- within the extended due date as against the applicable tax at Rs.9.00 lakh. On due consideration of the assessee’s reply, Ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment making addition of the entire declaration of Rs.20.00 lakh as unexplained income u/s.68 of the Act. Thereafter, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A) but then failed to make any compliance on the given dates of hearing, resulting into dismissal of appeal. Now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the impugned order.
A perusal of ‘statement of facts’ before ld.CIT(A) indicate that the assessee has paid the shortfall of Rs.75,000/- along with interest of Rs.72,345/- totalling to Rs.1,47,345/- on 08.02.2023 which is admittedly prior to passing of the Assessment Order. However, it is also an admitted position that there was no compliance before ld.CIT(A) which led to dismissal of appeal exparte.
Considering the factual matrix and in the interest of advancing justice, we deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case before
3 M/s. Vasan Narayan Nimbalkar (HUF)
ld.CIT(A). In view thereof, the issue raised in the instant appeal is being restored back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that ld. CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and on due consideration of details shall decide in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to update email and contact detail on the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Impugned order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 06th day of August, 2026. (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 06th August, 2026. Satish
Satish Kumar Madishetty 4 M/s. Vasan Narayan Nimbalkar (HUF)
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “SMC” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,
////
More judgments on Section 147
- 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
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rishi Stonex vs. The State Of Assam And 5 OthersGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- Gopal Datt vs. Vishal Kumar SharmaUttarakhand · 13 Oct 2026
- M/S Do Nam Enterprise And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And 2 OrsGauhati · 13 Oct 2026
- M Sundaravel vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Central GST And Central ExciseMadras · 13 Oct 2026
- A.Merchy Clara vs. The Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise (Appeals)Madras · 13 Oct 2026
