PRAFUL BHAURAO WAHADUDE,NAGPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT CENCIR 2(1),NAG, NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 615/NAG/2025Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 June 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the mode of service of notice was not reflected and the assessee intended to file additional evidence. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside to allow the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the NFAC for non-response, though the assessee claims non-service of notices. The assessee has now filed an application for additional evidence related to the addition of opening capital account balance.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was properly served with notices and if additional evidence should be considered for the addition of opening capital account balance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH :: NAGPUR

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agrawal, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.06.2026Pronounced: 16.06.2026

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 07/08/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”), for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.

2.

On hearing both the sides, we find that National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non response and also made observation on merits. Ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee was not served.

3.

Ld. DR vehemently opposes the same and submits that several notices were issued to the assessee.

4.

We find that National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, observes on 13.03.2025 that substantive submissions were received and thereafter fresh notice was issued on 03.07.2025, however, the mode of service of the notice is not reflected and in this context, we find that in Form 35, assessee had given e–mail address, but mentioned that notices be not served by e–mail.

5.

We further find that the assessee has now filed an application for additional evidences wherein assessee intends to file certain additional evidences in the form of financial statements. The issue involves is the addition of opening balance of the capital account under Section 69 of the Act and the evidences filed require verification.

6.

In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances we set aside the impugned orders and restore the issues on merits to the files of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to give afresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass an order afresh.

7.

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open Court on 16.06.2026 Sd/– Sd/– ANUBHAV SHARMA KHETTRA MOHAN ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Nagpur: Dated: 16/06/2026 Z.U, P.S Copy to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Revenue 3. The Pr.CIT concerned. 4. The DR, ITAT, Nagpur 5. Guard file.

By order

Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Nagpur

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →