RAJENDRA MADHAVRAO GAIKWAD,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 502/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 June 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the impugned order did not reference notices of hearing, indicating a lack of sufficient opportunity. Therefore, all issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an order confirming an addition of Rs. 2,50,000 for alleged on-money payment. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) passed the order without providing an opportunity of being heard, violating natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by passing an order without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250

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 Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Hearing: 19.05.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.502/PUN/2026 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Rajendra Madhavrao Gaikwad, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Anand Bhakti Sankul, Ward-3(1), Nashik B Wing, Datta Mandir Road, Nashik Road, Nashik 422101 Maharashtra PAN : ABUPG2358J Appellant Respondent

Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia Date of hearing : 19.05.2026 Date of pronouncement : 30.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2020-21 is directed against the order dated 14.11.2025 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 dated 18.03.2025 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Even on the previous dates of hearing fixed on 06.04.2026 and 09.04.2026, there is no representation from the side of assessee, we therefore

ITA No.502/PUN/2026 Rajendra Madhavrao Gaikwad

proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and available material on record.

3.

We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. Though on merits of the case, assessee has challenged the finding of ld.CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.2,50,000/- for the alleged on-money payment made for the purchase of property, however, assessee has raised ground No.1 stating that ld.CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without giving any opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. We note that in the impugned order there is no reference to the notices of hearing issued to the assessee for making the submissions and therefore it prima-facie indicates that sufficient opportunity has not been granted. We therefore taking note of the first ground of appeal raised by the assessee restore all the issues raised in this appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and effective grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No.502/PUN/2026 Rajendra Madhavrao Gaikwad

4.

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

Order pronounced on this 30th day of June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 30th June, 2026. Satish

Satish Kumar Madishetty Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.06.30 16:49:52 +05'30' 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,

// True Copy // Assistant Registrar, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →