VIKAS CHANDRAKANT PATIL,NASIK vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1765/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a salaried individual, was likely not properly advised in framing the grounds of appeal. Considering substantial justice over procedural technicalities, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for de-novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee did not appear for hearings, leading to an ex-parte decision by the Tribunal. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to a mismatch in the grounds of appeal regarding penalty proceedings versus assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal due to improper framing of grounds of appeal, and if substantial justice requires a de-novo adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 156,Section 147,Section 144,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Shri Harish Bist, Addl. CIT-DR

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, dated 19.02.2025 for AY 2018-19.

2.

Grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are as under:

Quote “1. The learned CIT has erred in law and on facts in raising a demand under section 156 of the Act amounting to Rs. 3,44,098/-, despite the assessee having furnished accurate particulars of income, and without appreciating that the said demand is not justified in law.

2.

The learned CIT failed to appreciate that before the CIT, the assesses had duly explained that reporting of income in his case was attributable to wrong action of tax consultant and all the material facts relating thereto along with substantiating evidences in form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police

ITA No. 1765/PUN/2025

Department etc. were also furnished by the assesses and therefore, the raised demand u/s 156 without rebutting the explanation offered by the assesses was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act.

3.

The learned CIT ought to have appreciated that the bona fides of the explanation offered by assesses were established from the fact that the assesses, being salaried employee from technical background, was totally dependent upon the tax consultant for filing income tax return and no such incorrect claim was ever made by the assesses either in past years or in subsequent years and therefore, the levy of demand u/s 156 was not justified in view of the explanation offered by the assesses.” Unquote

3.

In this case no one appeared on 15.04.2026. In this case on earlier hearings that is 30.03.2026, 02.02.2026, 18.11.2025, 25.08.2025 no one had appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we proceeded ex-parte qua assessee. We heard Ld. Departmental Representative and peruse the records.

4.

In this case Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assesse stating that in the grounds of appeal assessee had mentioned penalty proceedings u/s 270A, whereas appeal filed was against order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act.

5.

We have perused the Form No. 35 and noted that assesse had filed appeal against order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 30.01.2024. However, it seems that assessee was not properly advised and therefore has not framed the grounds of appeal properly. Assessee is an individual salaried worker. The substantial justice is more important than procedural delays. In this case even the assessment order was ex-parte. Therefore, in the interest of justice we set aside order of Ld.CIT(A) passed u/s 250 of the Act to Ld.CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. Assesse is asked to reframe his grounds of appeal filed before Ld.CIT(A). Assessee shall file all necessary details before Ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose.

ITA No. 1765/PUN/2025

6.

There was delay of 85 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. In the interest of justice, we condone the delay.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th May, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 27-05-2026 TNMM

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपील र्थी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 2. 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ 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 156

All 694 judgments and leading authorities on Section 156 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →