NISAR MOHAMMAD MUSA MALANS,KINWAT DIST NANDED vs. ITO WARD1, NANDED

ITSSA 110/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 October 20266 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC had passed an ex-parte order, relying on the Supreme Court decision in B.N. Bhattacharjee & Ors, due to the non-submission of details by the assessee on the date of hearing. Since the grounds raised by the assessee remained un-adjudicated, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee was granted one last opportunity to substantiate their case by filing the requisite details. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to decide the issue based on facts and law after the assessee makes submissions without seeking adjournments. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The issue regarding the jurisdiction of the JAO under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, as raised in ground 3, was not explicitly decided on merits but was implicitly part of the remand as the entire case was restored.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nisar Mohammad Musa Malans, is an individual. The assessment year in question is 2014-15. The appeal is against the order dated 10.03.2026 of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi. The assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs.2,55,160/-. Information available with the department indicated cash deposits of Rs.86,57,534/- in the assessee's bank account between 01.04.2013 and 31.03.2014, the source of which was not disclosed. The Assessing Officer reopened the case, issued a notice under section 148, and completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 144B on 09.05.2023. The AO made an addition of Rs.86,57,534/- under section 69A as unexplained money, rejecting the assessee's explanation of kirana business sale proceeds and the submission that cash withdrawn was for kirana purchases. The total income was determined at Rs.89,12,694/-. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(Appeal) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the various grounds of appeal and without appreciating the statement of facts and earlier submissions? (Question of law and fact). The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to consider the grounds and submissions, leading to a denial of natural justice. The assessee also argued that the CIT(A) erred in not concurring with the judgment of the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies regarding the jurisdiction of the JAO under the Faceless Assessment Scheme. The assessee further argued that the appeal was dismissed solely for non-prosecution without discussing the merits and legal aspects. The assessee urged for adjudication of the grounds raised at the first instance. The revenue's contentions are not recorded in the judgment. 2. Whether the CIT(Appeal) erred in dismissing the appeal solely for non-prosecution without discussing the merits of the case and legal aspects? (Question of law and fact). The assessee argued that the dismissal was premature and unjust. The revenue's contentions are not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Shah
For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT-DR

PER R.K. PANDA, VP:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.03.2026 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2014-15. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income on 13.06.2022 declaring total income of Rs.2,55,160/-. Information was available with the department that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.86,57,534/- in his bank account maintained with M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd during the period 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014. The assessee did not disclose the source of cash deposit in his bank account before the income tax department. The case of the assessee was reopened and not

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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →