MANOJ RAGHUNATH SHIRSATH,NIPHAD vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 503/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 April 2026AY 2023-244 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to present their case and that their submissions were not properly considered. Therefore, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a commission agent, appealed against assessment orders that estimated net profit at 8% of gross receipts. The assessee argued that their actual profit margin was around 1% and that proper opportunities for submission were not provided by the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the net profit was correctly estimated at 8% and whether the assessee was provided with adequate opportunity to present their case before the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Chinmayya Pathak, CA
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Thripathi
Hearing: 23.04.2026Pronounced: 28.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 503 & 507/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2023-24 & 2020-21 Manoj Raghunath Shirsath Vs. Assessment Unit Vinchur, Niphad, Nashik, IT department 422305. Kendriya Rajaswa PAN: DEOPS9636R Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Nashik – 400002. Appellant Respondent

: Assessee by Shri Chinmayya Pathak, CA (Through Virtual) : Revenue by Shri Manoj Thripathi, Addl. CIT : Date of hearing 23.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 28.04.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM:

The captioned appeals at the instance of assessee directed against the order Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) evenly dated 10.12.2025 pertain to A.Y 2020-21 and 2023-24 which were arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 06.03.2025 for A.Y 2020-21 and u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 27.02.2025 for A.Y 2023-24.

2.

Though the assessee has raised multiple grounds against both the impugned orders but the common

ITA Nos.503 & 507/PUN/2026 Manoj Raghunath Shirsath

grievance is that proper opportunity has not been granted by the ld. AO as no notices were issued by post on the registered address of the assessee nor on the email id registered with Income Tax portal. On merits grounds are raised against the estimation of net profit @ 8% of the gross receipts and that such percentage of 8% net profit is much higher to the net profit actually earned by the assessee in the business of commission agent for sale and purchase of grains and pulses in APMC Mandi Nasik.

3.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no information was received by the assessee through post on its address nor on the registered email id. He also submitted that ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not taking cognizance of the detailed submissions e-filed on 05.12.2025 for the impugned assessment years resulting into substantial hardship and unnecessary litigation faced by the assessee. He also submitted that the assessee is a Adatya / commission agent with APMC and the margin of commission is around 1% and therefore the net profit rate of 8% estimated by the ld. AO on a at very higher side and ld. AO has ignored the past results. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also referred to the legal issues raised in Ground Nos. 7 & 8 commonly for both the years but ld. CIT(A) has decided the same without considering the submissions filed by the assessee.

ITA Nos.503 & 507/PUN/2026 Manoj Raghunath Shirsath

4.

On the other hand, ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of ld. CIT(A).

5.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. The assessee has challenged the finding of ld. CIT(A) confirming the additions made by the ld. AO of estimating 8% net profit on the gross receipts. It is commonly stated that the assessee is engaged in the business of commission agent for purchase and sale of grains and pulses with APMC and that the net income of such transactions is mostly around 1%. We observe that the assessee has not been provided sufficient opportunity by both the lower authorities so much so that there was no proper communication to the assessee by ld. AO about carrying out the assessment proceedings and subsequently ld. CIT(A) has also not considered the submissions e-filed by the assessee. Considering the fact that in the business of commission agent of APMC the margin of profits are normally linked to the commission earned on such transactions which is claimed by the asssesee to be around 1% and certainly net profit are much less than 8% as adopted by the ld. AO. We therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also observing that assessee failed to get proper opportunity to make submissions before ld. AO and subsequently the submissions filed before ld. CIT(A) have not been considered, we deem it appropriate to restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal for

ITA Nos.503 & 507/PUN/2026 Manoj Raghunath Shirsath the A.Y 2020-21 and 2023-24 to the file of ld. JAO for de-novo adjudication. Needless to mention that the ld. JAO shall afford proper opportunity to the assessee. Further, we direct the assessee to update its latest email id and contact details on the income tax portal and shall furnish the details called for by the AO including the information about carrying on the business as commission agent of APMC, provide the financial statements for year under consideration as well as at least two years prior to A.Y 2020-21 (if business carried out) exhibiting the book results and based on all these details and other information as called for, ld. JAO shall de-novo frame assessment order for the impugned assessment years in accordance with law. Effective grounds of appeal raised for A.Y 2020-21 and 2023-24 are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 28th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; िदनांक / Dated : 28 April, 2026. KRK, Sr. PS

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →