SOMNATH BAHURANG RAHANE,PUNE vs. ITO WD-5(4), PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and to allow the filing of necessary documents and additional grounds.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee claimed that notices from the CIT(A) were sent to an incorrect email address, not the one provided in Form 35. The assessee requested another opportunity to present their case.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) properly served notices to the assessee, and if not, whether a fresh opportunity for hearing should be granted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: MS. ASTHA CHANDRA & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
आदेश /ORDER
PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 on 22.12.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 17.02.2025.
Submission of Ld. AR :
In this case, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had sent five notices which were not complied by the assessee as those notices were sent on email id rahanepune@gmail.com.
ITA No.832/PUN/2026 The Ld. AR submitted that in Form No. 35, the email id mentioned as surajz17995@gmail.com. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had not sent the notices on the email id mentioned in Form No. 35. The Ld. AR submitted that one more opportunity may kindly be provided to the assessee.
Submission of Ld. DR :
The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Ld. CIT(A).
Findings and Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) had sent five notices to the assessee on the email id i.e. rahanepune@gmail.com. The Ld. AR filed these copies of the notices. However, these notices were not complied by the assessee. Now, the plea taken by the Ld. AR was that the notices were not sent on the email id mentioned in Form No. 35 i.e. surajz17995@gmail.com. Ironically we specifically asked the Ld. AR to explain whose email id i.e. rahanepune@gmail.com is this? We also asked the Ld. AR has the assessee ever open the email id rahanepune@gmail.com for the year 2025 from September to November, 2025? The Ld. AR could not answer. He merely kept on pleading that the assessee may be provided one more opportunity.
In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall be allowed to file necessary documents and additional ground, if any.
ITA No.832/PUN/2026
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 04th August, 2026
Sd/- Sd/- (MS. ASTHA CHANDRA) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 04-08-2026 Ravi Kumar Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.08.04 16:26:45 Ravi Kumar +05'30' आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune
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 →- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026