RAMESHWAR GOVINDLAL TAPADIYA,PARBHANI vs. ITO,WARD , HINGOLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2993/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 June 2026AY 2013-20145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that it has no jurisdiction to decide grounds not adjudicated by the first appellate authority. Therefore, the legal issues and issues on merits were remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a 4-day delay, which was condoned. The assessee raised several legal grounds of appeal that were not adjudicated by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT can adjudicate grounds not considered by the CIT(A)? Whether reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were valid when Section 153C was applicable?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 151,Section 153C,Section 250,Section 69,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Ms. Madhavi Vyas (Virtual)
For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Hearing: 18.05.2026Pronounced: 04.06.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 is directed against the order dated 11.09.2025 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 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 4 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reason which led to delay. On due consideration of the averments made in the affidavit, we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We note that the delay is not intentional and assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal with a delay. We therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 4 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3.

In the instant appeal, assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in law by initiating proceedings us 148 of the act AO and the learned CITA erred in upholding the reassessment us 147even though the information forming the basis of the alleged 'reason to believe' was admittedly derived I from a search and seizure action us 132 conducted on a third party. The failure of the Assessing Officer to invoke section 153C, which is a special and overriding code for assessment in consequence of search, renders the entire reassessment proceedings void ab initio, without juri iction and unsustainable in law.

2.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CITA has erred in confirming the order of Assessing Officer for completing the assessment proceedings without providing all the reasons and source of information for reopening before the issue of Notice us 148 of the Act and thus violating the law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts India Ltd. v. D.C.I.T. 2003 259 ITR 19 SC.

3.

That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT A has erred in confirming the action of Ld Assessing Officer AO in issuing the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without providing the assessee with a copy of the approval obtained under Section 151 and by obtaining a mere mechanical sanction us 151 from Addl. Joint CIT and thus violating the law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Chhugamal Rajpal v. SP Chaliha 1971 79 ITR 603. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT A has erred in confirming the Ld Assessing Officer order to adjudicate OR record any finding on the assessees specific ground regarding absence of DIN, rendering the order perverse and violative of section 250 6, which requires reasoned and speaking order.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT A has erred in confirming the order of the 5 Assessing Officer has in estimating of income at 8 percent on cash deposits of Rs.1,98,61,022 is arbitrary, excessive, and devoid of any statutory basis. There is no provision under the Act authorising AO to apply presumptive rate on bank deposits.

6.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed by Assessing Officer treating cash deposits as unexplained without invoking section 69 69A and without recording satisfaction as required under these provisions.

7.

That the assessee craves leave to add, modify, alter or withdraw any grounds at the time of hearing.”

4.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the referring to the legal grounds of appeal raised before this Tribunal submitted that these issues have been raised for the first time and they have not been adjudicated by ld.CIT(A). He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order remitting the legal issues to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative while supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) has not raised any serious objection for remanding the legal grounds to the file of ld.CIT(A).

5.

Having heard the rival contentions and perused the record, we note that the issue of Tribunal’s power to adjudicate the grounds raised before it in second appeal which did not pass through first appeal came for consideration before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT’ [2025, 171 taxmann.com 92 (Del)], wherein their Hon’ble Lordship vide para 13 have categorically held that, the Tribunal has no juri iction to proceed to decide the grounds which did not arise from the impugned order passed by first appellate authority, irrespective of such ground was raised in first appeal or not.

6.

Under these given facts and circumstances, since the legal issues has been raised for the first time before this Tribunal which though admitted in light of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) we are of the view that the same deserves to be adjudicated by ld.CIT(A). We therefore remit back the legal issues and the issues raised on merits by the assessee for the year under consideration to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that in the set aside proceedings ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 04th day of June, 2026. (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 04th June, 2026. Satish

Satish Kumar Madishetty 5 आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →