SURESH DATTATRAY DHIKALE,CHANDWAD, NASHIK vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MALEGAON, MALEGAON

ITA 2965/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 September 2026AY 2015-169 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the legal ground raised by the assessee regarding limitation. It noted that the AO issued the notice under Section 148 on 05.04.2022 for AY 2015-16, after a lapse of more than three years from the end of the assessment year. As per Section 149(1) of the Act, no notice can be issued after a lapse of three years from the end of the assessment year if the alleged escapement of income is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. In this case, the alleged escapement was Rs. 40,53,313/-, which is below Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the AO had no jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148, making it bad in law and the consequential assessment order void-ab-initio. Consequently, the Tribunal did not comment on the merits of the addition. The appeal was partly allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Suresh Dattatray Dhikale, filed an appeal before the ITAT Pune against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine due to a delay of three days and without considering the assessee's alleged mental incapacity. The original assessment order, passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 24.01.2024, was based on information from the Insight Portal regarding alleged cash deposits of Rs. 52,12,000/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) subsequently determined the unexplained cash deposits to be Rs. 40,53,313/- and made an addition under Section 69A. The notice under Section 148 was issued on 05.04.2022.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone a delay of three days in filing the appeal, thereby dismissing it in limine and denying adjudication on merits, contrary to settled law and principles of natural justice, considering the assessee's alleged mental incapacity and medical certificate (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 249(3)). 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order without considering the appellant's mental incapacity and medical certificate, constituting sufficient cause, thus vitiating the order for non-application of mind and breach of natural justice (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 249(3)). 3. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal in limine without recording points for determination, decisions thereon, and reasons, as mandated by Section 250(6), failing to discharge statutory obligation to decide on merits (Question of law, turning on Section 250(6)). 4. Whether the learned authorities below erred in treating Rs. 40,53,313/- as unexplained money under Section 69A, when the credits were from explained sources like agricultural income and re-deposit of cash withdrawals (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 69A). 5. Whether the reassessment is barred by limitation under Section 149(1), as the notice under Section 148 for AY 2015-16, with alleged escapement below Rs. 50 lakh, was issued beyond three years from the end of the assessment year (Question of law, turning on Section 149(1)). 6. Whether the notice under Section 148 dated 05.04.2022 is invalid for being contrary to Section 151A and CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 mandating faceless issuance, rendering the notice and assessment void ab initio (Question of law, turning on Section 151A). 7. Whether the reassessment is bad for non-supply of sanction/approval under Section 151, as the satisfaction and approval for reopening were not furnished with the notice under Section 148 (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 151). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) wrongly dismissed the appeal due to a minor delay, ignoring mental incapacity and medical evidence. The CIT(A) failed to consider these grounds and did not follow the procedure under Section 250(6). The addition under Section 69A is unsustainable as the sources are explained. The reassessment is barred by limitation under Section 149(1) as the alleged escapement is below Rs. 50 lakh. The notice under Section 148 is invalid due to non-compliance with Section 151A and CBDT notification on faceless assessment. The reassessment is also bad for non-supply of Section 151 approval. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue was represented by Shri Prashant Barate. No specific contentions for the Revenue were recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 249(3),Section 69A,Section 149(1),Section 148,Section 151A,Section 151

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 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 2015-16 on 19.06.2026, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 24.01.2024. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone a delay of merely three (03) days in filing the appeal and in dismissing the appeal in limine as inadmissible, thereby denying the appellant an adjudication on merits, which refusal is contrary to the settled exposition of law

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 →