ROHINI RAMHARI BHADALE,PUNE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 2(2) PUNE, PUNE

ITA 2767/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 October 2026AY 2015-20168 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed due to absence, and therefore, the merits of the case were not considered by the lower appellate authority. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided an affidavit stating she received the plot as a gift in 2012 and sold it in 2014 for Rs.75,00,000/-, received through banking channels. She claimed the plot could not be sold at fair market value as it was sold on an 'as is where is' basis due to its location among other plots sold by her father. The assessee's counsel argued that the AO was obligated to refer the matter to the DVO for valuation, citing the Calcutta High Court judgment in Sunil Kumar Agarwal. The Tribunal found that since the CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal without a decision on merits, the matter needed to be remanded back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication on all grounds raised by the assessee. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not deciding the issues on merits at this stage.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Rohini Ramhari Bhadale, is an individual who did not file a return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after information on the insight portal indicated substantial financial transactions. A notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on 19.03.2022, followed by an order under Section 148A(d) on 04.04.2022, and a notice under Section 148 on the same date. The assessee filed a return on 05.05.2022, declaring an income of Rs.54,480/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted that the assessee sold an immovable property for Rs.75,00,000/-, while its stamp duty value was Rs.1,23,12,000/-. The AO added the difference of Rs.48,12,000/- under Section 50C, completing the assessment at Rs.48,66,480/-. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A)/NFAC, which dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's absence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 04.04.2022, is invalid due to the initiation of Faceless Assessment Proceedings from 29.03.2022? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Assessing Officer considered all available records and made additions based on presumption and surmise, failing to consider the sale agreement and the actual consideration received by the assessee? 3. Whether the addition of Rs.48,12,000/- under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the difference between the Stamp Duty Value and the Actual Sales Consideration, violates the Real Income Theory, as the assessee did not earn this amount? 4. Whether the Assessing Officer should have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for determining the actual valuation of the property before making the addition under Section 50C? 5. Whether the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) followed the Principles of Natural Justice during the assessment proceedings? Assessee's contentions: - The notice under Section 148 is invalid due to faceless assessment. - The AO made additions based on presumption, not considering the sale agreement and actual payment schedule. - The addition under Section 50C violates the Real Income Theory as the amount was not earned. - The AO was duty-bound to refer the matter to the DVO for valuation. - Principles of Natural Justice were not followed. - Relied on Sunil Kumar Agarwal vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Siliguri [2014] 47 taxmann.com 158 (Calcutta High Court). Revenue's contentions: - Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 147,Section 143,Section 142,Section 50C,Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri CA Deepak Sagar
For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale (Virtual)
Hearing: 04.08.2026Pronounced: 14.10.2026

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.03.2026 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “(1) Ground No. (1): Grounds related to Invalid issue of Notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:- The Ld. Juri ictional Assessing Officer (JAO) Ward 2(2) Pune issued notice u/s 148 dated 04.04.2022 which is not valid after Faceless Assessment Proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department w.e.f. 29/03/2022. 2 Ground No. (2): The Ld. Assessing officer has not considered various records which were available durin

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 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →