PATBANDHARE KARMCHARYANCHI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT, SANGLI,PATBANDHARE BHAVAN vs. ITO WARD 1, SANGLI, SANGLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 390/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 August 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to allow the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to file additional evidence, and also to provide an opportunity to the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not appear before the ITAT. The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order which upheld the assessment order. The assessee's primary grievance was that the CIT(A) ignored additional evidence filed under Rule 46A and passed a non-speaking order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in ignoring additional evidence filed under Rule 46A and passing a non-speaking order, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Respondent: Smt. Shraddha Nichal, Addl. CIT

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 2020-21 on 27.11.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 29.09.2022.

2.

Findings and analysis: None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Earlier on 08.04.2026 and 11.06.2026 no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, hence, the case was adjourned. Even today no one had appeared on behalf of the assessee. In these factual backgrounds, we proceed to decide the appeal ex-parte qua the assessee.

ITA No. 390/PUN/2026

3.

Ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is as under : “5. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in ignoring the additional evidences filed under Rule 46A on 16.09.2025 and in passing a non-speaking order, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.”

4.

We have heard Ld. DR and perused the records. The assessee has raised the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) has violated the Rule 46A and ignored the additional evidences. In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the assessment order. It is observed that the assessee had filed submission regarding the membership status under the Co-operative Society Act and affidavit of the Secretary. On perusal of the assessment order, it is observed that the affidavit of the Secretary of the assessee was not filed. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) shall allow opportunity of hearing to the assessee and also permit the assessee to file additional evidences if any. The Ld. CIT(A) shall also provide opportunity to the Assessing Officer. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th August, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 25-08-2026 Digitally signed by Ravi Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Kumar Date: 2026.08.25 16:21:17 +05'30'

ITA No. 390/PUN/2026

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 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →