JHAVERI FAMILY TRUST,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2437/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 October 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that there was no compliance from the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority, leading to the dismissal of the appeal in limine. However, considering the assessee's prayer and in the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, as contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Act, after affording due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was directed to provide updated contact details for receiving notices and to remain vigilant. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the disallowance of transfer expenses.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Jhaveri Family Trust, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2016-17 declaring Rs.34,68,790/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted the sale of 28,28,000 shares of M/s Jhaveri Flexo (India) Ltd. for Rs.5,79,74,000/-, with the assessee claiming transfer expenses of Rs.2,37,50,000/-. Despite notices, the assessee provided no reply. Consequently, the Assessing Officer disallowed the transfer expenses, adding them to the long-term capital gains. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal should restore the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, given the assessee's failure to comply with notices before the lower authorities due to unavoidable circumstances. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that due to unavoidable circumstances, there was no compliance before the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating on the merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee submitted that it could substantiate its case if given an opportunity and prayed for condonation of delay and restoration of issues to the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue supported the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 48,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri Akash Ojha
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar
Hearing: 07.09.2026Pronounced: 26.10.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y.2016-17 is against the order dated 21.08 framed by the ld.CIT(A), Pune-12 emanating out of Assessment order dated 15.12.2018 passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act).

2.

Tersely the facts of the case are that the assessee is a trust and for A.Y. 2016-17 assessee filed its original return of income on 02.08.2016 declaring total income at Rs.34,68,790/-. Case selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS. Subsequently, notices u/s143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, Ld. Assessing Officer found

ITA No.2437/PUN/2025 Jhaveri Family Trust

that the assessee had sold 28,28,000 shares of M/s Jhaveri Flexo (India) Ltd. for total consideration of Rs.5,79,74,000/- and claimed transfer expenses of Rs.2,37,50,000/- out of the said transaction. Ld. Assessing Officer issued various notices to the assessee, however, there was no reply. In the absence of any compliance, ld. Assessing Officer held that assessee failed to prove that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer as required u/s.48 of the Act and therefore transfer expenses of Rs. 2,37,50,000/- claimed by the assessee were disallowed and added to the long-term capital gains. On further appeal, assessee’s appeal came to be dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) and the assessee has approached this Tribunal assailing the exparte impugned order.

3.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine without any adjudication on merits of the case as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. He further submitted that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case. Since there is no adjudication by the ld.CIT(A) on merits, a prayer is made to condone the delay and restore the issues back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.

4.

On the other hand, ld. DR raised supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

5.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. It is an admitted fact that there was no compliance from the side of assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the First Appellate Authority, resulting into dismissal of assessee’s appeal in limine. We however considering

ITA No.2437/PUN/2025 Jhaveri Family Trust

the prayer made by the assessee and in the larger interest of justice deem it appropriate to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merits of the case as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act after affording due opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 26th day of October, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 26th October, 2026. Satish आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “A” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गार्ड फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Digitally signed by Sunil Kumar Sunil Kumar More More // True Copy // Assistant Registrar, Date: 2026.10.26 17:19:25 +05'30' आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

More judgments on Section 48

All 1,457 judgments and leading authorities on Section 48 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →