RAKESH SUTHAKAT SHETTY,KHARGHAR vs. ITO, PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2720/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 May 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, finding no reason to deviate from the ex-parte assessment made by the AO and sustained by the lower appellate authority. The assessee's failure to provide any submissions at any stage led to this decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file his income tax return for AY 2013-14. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on significant transactions like property purchase and TDS, and completed it ex-parte after the assessee's non-compliance. The CIT(A) also dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment and subsequent dismissal of appeal due to non-compliance and non-prosecution are justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Respondent: Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain, Addl. CIT

PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.02.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2013-14. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the name of the assessee was called. No application seeking adjournment of the case has been filed. A perusal of the order sheet entries shows that on previous occasions also, no one was appearing. Under these circumstances, we deem it proper to decide this appeal on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR.

3.

There is a delay of 203 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit

2 explaining the reasons for such delay which is due to the demise of his father. After considering the contents of the condonation application filed along with the affidavit and after hearing the Ld. DR, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

4.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee due to non-prosecution.

5.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year. The Assessing Officer noted from the data available in the ITBA module that the assessee has made the following transactions during the year:

Purchase of immovable property Rs.60,84,540/- TDS Return – Salary to Employees (Section 192A) Rs.2,76,354/- TDS Return – Salary to Employees (Section 192B) Rs.2,34,518/-

6.

Since the assessee has not filed his return of income, the Assessing Officer, after recording reasons, reopened the assessment and issued notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). However, the assessee did not comply to the said notice issued u/s 148 of the Act nor responded to the subsequent notices. The Assessing Officer, therefore, completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.65,95,412/- wherein he made various additions.

3

7.

Since the assessee despite number of opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, did not make any submission, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

8.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

9.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-submission of any details before the Assessing Officer, he completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.65,95,412/-. Since the assessee did not make any submission before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC despite number of opportunities granted by him, he upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. Since nothing has been brought to our notice to take a contrary view than the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustaining various additions made by the Assessing Officer, therefore, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th May, 2026. (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 20th May, 2026 GCVSR Gajjala Chinna Venkata Subba Reddy Venkata Subba Reddy Date: 2026.05.20 16:05:43 +05'30'

4 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent

2.3.

DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune

4.

The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. 5. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, ////

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →