SATISH SHANTARAM MHASKE,NASHIK vs. THE ITO, WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1670/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 July 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and did not follow the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in trading construction material, did not file a return of income as his income was below the taxable limit. The case was re-opened based on information about property transactions and bank deposits, leading to an ex-parte assessment. The CIT(A) also dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on the merits of the additions made by the AO, and whether the order violated Section 250(6) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 69,Section 69A,Section 148,Section 149(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: CA Chinmyya Pathak
For Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe, JCIT

PER ASTHA CHANDRA, J.M.:

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04-02-2026 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”], u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”), pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2015-16. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of trading in construction material mainly sand. For AY. 2015-16, the assessee did not file his return of income as his income was below the taxable limit. Based on the information available with the Department that the assessee has entered into certain transactions relating to sale/purchase of immoveable property and deposit in bank account during the relevant AY, the case of the assessee was re-opened and consequently, scrutiny assessment was carried out. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) completed the assessment

2 ex-parte, determining the assessed income of the assessee at Rs. 1,67,28,720/- u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act vide his order dt. 20-03-2024, by making the following additions:

3.

On appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, despite service(s) of notice of hearing issued during the appellate proceedings, there was non- compliance on the part of the assessee which resulted in ex-parte decision by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

4.

Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following Grounds of Appeal:

“1. On the facts and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 37,50,000/- towards sale proceeds of land as short term capital gain as the assessee had not sold any land but has purchased land for Rs.37,50,000/-.

2.

On the facts and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,02,25,000/- on account of payments for investment for purchase of immovable properties of Rs.37,50,000/- and Rs.64,75,000/- as the impugned payments were made as per registered sathekhat in earlier years. It is settled position as per section 69 itself that payments made in the current year can only be considered for addition u/s 69 while assessing income of the current year.

3.

On the facts and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.27,53,720/- u/s 69A on account of unexplained cash deposited in NMC Bank, whereas the actual cash deposited in NMC Bank, SB Account No-4279, was Rs.14,89,300/- and the cash deposits in NMC Bank were out of turnover of the sand trading business which was around Rs.32,00,000/-.

4.

On the facts and in law, the notice issued u/s 148 dated 05/04/2022 for AY 2015-16 is time barred as per section 149(1)(b) of the Act.”

3

5.

We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the Parties and perused the material available on record. It is submitted by the Ld.AR that the assessee could not access the e-mail during the period when notices were sent by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC due to certain unavoidable circumstances. We, however, observe that the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is silent on merits of the case and the issue(s) raised by the assessee before him. Perusal of the appellate order reveals that the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has applied the decision in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another [118 ITR 461] and dismissed the case of the assessee for non-prosecution. No doubt, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC may decide the appeal where the assessee does not prosecute his appeal in spite of several opportunities, nonetheless, he has to adhere to legislative mandate enshrined in sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act, which requires him to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. The Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has passed the impugned order in concurrence of the order of the Ld.AO without himself going into the merits of the case. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act.

6.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter deserves to be sent back to the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication afresh on merits. The Ld.DR had no objection if the matter is set aside to the file of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and direct him to decide the appeal denovo on merits and as per fact and law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee shall co-operate fully during the appellate proceedings and make his submission, failing which the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass the appropriate order in accordance with law. We

4 hold and direct accordingly. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30-07-2026 (RAMA KANTA PANDA) (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे/Pune; Tadepalli Naga दिन ांक/Dated : 30-07-2026 Naga Murali Mohan Murali Mohan Date: 2026.07.31 13:01:25 +05'30' TNMM

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, ////

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →