BALU KASHINATH PAWAR,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

ITA 1079/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 October 2026AY 2017-1811 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Balu Kashinath Pawar, filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 1079 & 1083/PUN/2026) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, for Assessment Years 2017-18 and 2018-19. These appeals challenged orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, which confirmed assessment orders passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The original assessment orders stemmed from a survey conducted under Section 133A in the case of a tax practitioner, Mr. Kishor Patil, who allegedly facilitated bogus deductions. The assessee was identified as one such beneficiary, claiming a bogus deduction of Rs. 3,01,793/- under Chapter VIA for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 4,53,581/- to the returned income. The appeals were filed with a delay of 5 days. The assessee's representative appeared virtually without a valid Power of Attorney.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that both appeals filed by the assessee are non-maintainable. This decision was based on the observation that Form No. 36 and the grounds of appeal lacked the mandatory signature of the appellant, Mr. Balu Kashinath Pawar. The email address provided on Form No. 36 belonged to a tax practitioner, and the defect memo issued by the ITAT registry for non-compliance was not addressed. The Tribunal found no means to verify that the appeals were actually filed by the assessee, especially considering the background of fraudulent claims and the involvement of the tax practitioner. Citing decisions in Akar Auto Industries Limited, Shivjyoti Sahakari Patpedhi Maryadit, and Maruthi Constructions, the Tribunal concluded that the absence of the appellant's signature renders the appeals invalid. Consequently, both appeals for AYs 2017-18 and 2018-19 were dismissed as non-maintainable.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the assessee are maintainable in the prescribed form and manner as per Section 253(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 47 of the Income Tax Rules. Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the assessee regarding the maintainability of the appeal. The representative appeared virtually without a valid POA. The ITAT registry had issued a defect memo which was not complied with. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contention from the revenue regarding the maintainability of the appeal. However, the facts indicate that the appeals were filed without the mandatory signatures on Form No. 36 and the grounds of appeal, and the email ID used belonged to a tax practitioner, raising doubts about the appellant's direct involvement in filing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 144B,Section 147,Section 250,Section 253(6)

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: CA (Virtually without valid POA)
For Respondent: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : These two appeals 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 Assessment Years (AYs) 2017-18 and 2018-19 on 10.12.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 26.09.2021. 2. Since, the issue involved is same, for the sake of convenience, these two appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

3.

There was a delay of 05 days in filing of both the appeals before this Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit e

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 133A

All 5,787 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →