HARSHADA ANIL JADHAV,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DHULE

ITA 3335/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 September 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not valid. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not filed a return of income for the assessment year 2018-19. The reopening was initiated based on information about the purchase of an immovable property worth Rs. 1.51 crore. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not been provided with the material that formed the basis of the reopening, specifically the information received from the Sub-Registrar's office. This lack of disclosure of the reasons for reopening and the supporting material violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144 was quashed. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the income escaping assessment, as the primary issue was the validity of the reopening process. The operative direction was to quash the assessment order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, is appealing an order dated 24.10.2025 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. This order stemmed from an assessment order dated 28.03.2023, passed under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question is 2018-19. The assessee had not filed a return of income for this assessment year. The case was reopened based on information that the assessee had purchased an immovable property valued at Rs. 1.51 crore, which was not disclosed in the return. A notice under section 148 was issued, but the assessee did not file a return of income.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the reopening of assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was valid, considering the assessee had not filed a return of income for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee contended that the reopening was not justified as there was no escapement of income to assess. The assessee argued that the information regarding the property purchase was not properly considered. The revenue contended that the reopening was valid as the assessee had failed to disclose a significant asset, leading to escapement of income. The revenue relied on the information received from the Sub-Registrar's office regarding the property transaction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri Chinmay Pathak
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar
Hearing: 03.08.2026Pronounced: 28.09.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y.2018-19 is against the order dated 24.10.2025 framed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of Assessment order dated 28.03.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act).

2.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed the return of income for A.Y. 2018-19. Based on the information that assessee has purchased an immovable property worth Rs.1.51 crore and has not disclosed the same in the return of income, case of the assessee reopened. Notice u/

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →