YOGESH RAMDAS GHODE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 508/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 October 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee, Yogesh Ramdas Ghode, an individual, had not filed a return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an assessment order under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee appealed this order to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. During appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) issued multiple notices for hearing and submissions, to which the assessee only responded with adjournment letters. Consequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on the merits of the case, upholding the AO's addition of Rs. 4,08,323/- as unexplained cash deposit under Section 69A. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. Citing the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the Tribunal emphasized that Section 250(6) of the Act 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) has the power to confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul an assessment and is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal, which is mandatory. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution, thereby failing to adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merits, as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contention: The assessee did not appear before the ITAT, hence no arguments were recorded on their behalf. Revenue's contention: The Revenue, represented by the Additional CIT, did not explicitly argue on the merits of the case before the ITAT. However, the judgment implies that the Revenue's position was aligned with the CIT(A)'s order which upheld the AO's findings. The Revenue did not contest the assessee's appeal before the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 250(4),Section 250(6),Section 251(1)(a),Section 251(1)(b),Section 251(2),Section 69A,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 Respondent: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl. CIT

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 2017-18 on 29.11.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 21.04.2023. Findings and Analysis:

2.

On 01.04.2026, 30.04.2026, 24.06.2026, 10.08.2026 and 01.10.2026, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We heard the case on 01.10.2026 ex-parte qua the assessee. We heard Ld. DR and perused the records.

3.

In this case, the assessee is an individual and had not filed return of income for AY 2017-18. During the appellate

2 proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) iss

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 48,773 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →