DEVDAS GANU PATIL,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, PANVEL
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, after hearing the Revenue Representative and noting the assessee's absence and lack of submissions, confirmed the CIT(A)'s order. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer reopened the case based on information about the sale of immovable property and assessed income at Rs. 54,00,000/- as short-term capital gain. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-appearance.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment order passed ex-parte due to non-compliance by the assessee is sustainable. The primary issue is the dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2002/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Devdas Ganu Patil, Vs. ITO, Ward-5, Pune. 234, Near Vitthal Mandir, Valavali, Pale Badruk, Nawade, Panvel- 410208. PAN : APMPP1758H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Haladkar Date of hearing 16.07.2026 : Date of pronouncement 30.07.2026 : आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. There is delay of 59 days in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the
2 ITA No.2002/PUN/2025 appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay of 59 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not furnished his return of income for the period under consideration. On the basis of information available on the income tax portal that the assessee had sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs.54,00,000/- and income from capital gain, if any, has not been disclosed by furnishing return of income, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act and notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee on 23.03.2023. The assessee did not furnish any return in response to above notice and also not responded to the subsequent notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 01.03.2024 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.54,00,000/- as against no return filed by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.54,00,000/- being short term capital gain from sale of immovable property.
3 ITA No.2002/PUN/2025 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without going into merits of the case. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. When the appeal was called for hearing neither anybody appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed despite intimation of date of hearing, therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record as well as after hearing Ld. DR. 7. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that on earlier occasions the case was adjourned, even today also when the case was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared nor any application for adjournment was filed, despite intimation of the date of hearing. 8. Since no submission was made before us by the assessee in support of grounds of appeal, we are unable to draw any inference. We therefore confirm the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and
4 ITA No.2002/PUN/2025 accordingly, dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 30th day of July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 30th July, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.07.30 12:09:00 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, 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 →- Subrat Kumar Samal vs. The Commissioner, CGST, Cx And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Laxmipriya Biswal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax,BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Shree Jagannath Engineering,Angul vs. Assistant Commissioner, Angul Division ,AngulOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Archana Agro, Nayagarh vs. The Chief Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, CuttackOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Shree Jagannath Associates, Angul vs. The Chief Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, CuttackOrissa · 3 Nov 2026