SMT. PRIYANKA DIPAK JADHAV,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 2600/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 September 2026AY 2024-20256 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Smt. Priyanka Dipak Jadhav, an individual, filed an income tax return for Assessment Year 2024-25 declaring a total income of Rs. 2,58,520/-. The income comprised interest, commission, and other income. The assessee opted for the special taxation regime under Section 115BAC. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted significant credit entries aggregating Rs. 83,33,028/- in the assessee's savings bank account. Despite the assessee's explanation that these were routine transactions and not commission-earning activities, the AO arbitrarily estimated commission income at 5% of the total transactions, amounting to Rs. 4,16,651/-, and added it to the total income. The assessee's appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed for non-compliance with notices, without adjudicating the merits of the case. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. Citing the Bombay High Court's decision in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the Tribunal emphasized that Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and rendering a decision on each point with reasons. The CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. Therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeal de novo and provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. The issue regarding the addition of estimated commission income was not adjudicated on merits by the Tribunal as the matter was remitted to the Ld. CIT(A).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits, as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the addition of estimated commission income of Rs. 4,16,651/- by the Assessing Officer, based on savings bank account transactions without any evidence of actual earning or accrual, was legally sustainable? Assessee's Contentions: - The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, as Section 250(6) of the Act mandates adjudication on merits. The assessee relied on the Bombay High Court's decision in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF). - The AO's estimation of commission income was arbitrary, excessive, and without factual basis, as the actual commission earned from authorized operations was Rs. 1,73,067/-. The savings bank account transactions did not represent commission-earning activities. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions from the Revenue regarding the dismissal by the Ld. CIT(A) or the merits of the addition made by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 115BAC,Section 250(6),Section 251(1)(a),Section 251(1)(b),Section 251(2),Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Vaibhav Ruikar (virtual)
For Respondent: Shri Prashant Barate

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for AY 2024-25 on 05.03.2026, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 25.11.2025. Findings and Analysis:

2.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records.

2.

1 As per the statement of facts filed by the assessee, the assessee is an Individual. The Assessee filed return of income for the AY 2024-25 on 20.07.2024 declaring total Income at Rs.2,58,520/-. The total income consists of Income from Other Sources - Rs.2,58,520/-

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 144B

All 10,344 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →