VIJAY BABURAO PATIL GURAV,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(5), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 750/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 October 2026AY 2014-20157 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear on the hearing date, and the case was decided ex-parte. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had raised several grounds, including jurisdictional issues regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated after 01.04.2021 without following Section 148A, and the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2). The assessee also challenged the addition of Rs. 2,24,300 under Section 69A, arguing it was based on unverified information and without an opportunity for cross-examination, contrary to the registered sale deed. Given the ex-parte nature of the hearing and the substantial grounds raised by the assessee concerning procedural infirmities and merits, the Tribunal found it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to decide the issues afresh after providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard and to examine the evidence. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the additions or the jurisdictional issues.

What were the facts?

This appeal by the assessee, Vijay Baburao Patil Gurav, is against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The appeal emanates from an Assessment Order dated 21.03.2022 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Kolhapur. The assessee did not appear on multiple hearing dates, leading to the case being heard ex-parte. The revenue was represented by Smt. Deepa Hiray, Addl. CIT. The assessee's grounds of appeal challenge the validity of reassessment proceedings, the non-issuance of mandatory notices, and additions made under Section 69A without proper evidence or opportunity for cross-examination.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal was to decide the following questions: 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have decided the jurisdictional and legal grounds concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated after 01.04.2021 without following Section 148A, and the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2), before exercising any power of set-aside, as per Section 250 of the Act. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was duty-bound to decide the appeal on merits by adjudicating all grounds, as the assessment order was made under Section 147 and not Section 144, and if the exercise of set-aside power was beyond jurisdiction. 3. Whether the reassessment proceedings initiated by a notice under Section 148 dated 30.03.2021, dispatched after 01.04.2021, are governed by the new regime under Sections 148 to 1484, making the proceedings void ab initio for non-compliance with Section 148A. 4. Whether the assessment order is void ab initio due to the failure to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) before framing the assessment, despite the assessee filing a return in response to the Section 148 notice. 5. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs. 2,24,300 under Section 69A based solely on unverified information without sharing it or providing an opportunity for cross-examination. 6. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in disregarding the registered sale deed showing a purchase consideration of Rs. 1,80,000 and relying on oral/unverified information. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that reassessment proceedings initiated after 01.04.2021 must follow Section 148A and that notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory. They contended that the notice under Section 148 was issued after 01.04.2021, making the proceedings void ab initio for non-compliance with Section 148A. The addition under Section 69A was based on undisclosed material and lacked an opportunity for cross-examination, violating natural justice, as per Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT. The registered sale deed should be considered conclusive evidence of consideration. Revenue's Contentions: No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148A,Section 143(2),Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 69A

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. Deepa Hiray, 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 2014-15 on 19.01.2026, emanating from the Assessment Order dated 21.03.2022. 2. Basic Facts :  On 05.05.2026, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, hence, case was adjourned to 19.05.2026.  On 10.05.2026, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, hence, case was adjourned to 17.06.2026.  On 11.08.2026, Shri Vaibhav Ruikar, Ld. AR of the assessee appeared virtually and requested for adjournment. Hence, case was adjourned to 07.10.2026.  On 07.10.2026, none appeared on behal

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 148A

All 3,543 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →