BALIRAM KRISHNA DARADE,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD2(3),SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the material on record, noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices despite adequate opportunities. However, the Tribunal acknowledged that there could be various reasons for non-appearance or non-compliance, which should not be overruled. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence and information. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the disputed issue was remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee is to be provided with adequate opportunity of hearing and must cooperate in submitting information for early disposal. The grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Baliram Krishna Darade, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2015-16. The Revenue received information via the Insight Portal indicating cash deposits of Rs. 3,00,000/- and time deposits of Rs. 47,06,099/- in FY 2015-15, while the assessee had not filed a return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under Section 148A(b) and Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but received no compliance. Despite further notices under Section 142(1) and show-cause notices, the assessee remained non-compliant. The AO, invoking Section 144, made additions of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Section 69A and Rs. 47,06,099/- under Section 69, assessing total income at Rs. 50,06,099/-. The CIT(A) also dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions made by the AO, despite the assessee's claim of having a good case on merits and seeking an opportunity to substantiate with material evidence (mixed question of law and fact). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's action by overlooking the assessment proceedings. The non-compliance with notices before the CIT(A) was not wanton or deliberate, and the assessee has a strong case on merits, requesting an opportunity to present evidence before the lower authorities. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue's representative supported the order of the CIT(A).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148A,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 133(6),Section 69A,Section 69,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE
Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Assessee has filed an appeal against the order of CIT(A)/ NFAC passed u/sec 250 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the ex- parte order of the CIT(A) in sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO).
The brief facts of the case are that, the Income Tax Department has received information through Insight Portal under Non-filing of Return (NMS) in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by the CBDT (Board) that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- and time deposit of Rs. 47,06,099/- in the bank in F.Y.2015-15 and the 2 Baliram Krishna Darade
assessee has not filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2015-
The Assessing officer(A.O) has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice to the assessee under Clause (b) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act but there was no compliance, and with the prior approval from the Competent Authority, the order u/s 148A(d) of the I.T. Act was passed on 05/04/2022 and accordingly notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee on the same date i.e 5.04.2022. Further notice u/sec 142(1) of the Act was issued from time to time calling for explanations in respect of cash deposits and time deposits, but there was no compliance. The A.O has also issued show cause to the assessee but there was no response. The A.O find that the assessee has not made submissions on the disputed issues in spite of providing adequate opportunities of hearing and finally the A.O considering the information available on record has invoked the provisions of section 144 of the Act and issued notice u/sec 133(6) of the Act on the banks calling for details of financial transactions carried out by the assessee. Finally, the AO has made addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Act and Rs. 47,06,099/- under Section 69 of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs. 50,06,099/- and passed the order u/sec 147 r.w.s 144 and r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 06.01.2024. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A).Whereas the CIT (A) has considered grounds of appeal, statement of facts, finding of the A.O and has issued notice of hearing and since there was no compliance by the assessee then, CIT(A) considering the information on record has confirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the 3 Baliram Krishna Darade
assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal with Hon’ble Tribunal.
At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO overlooking the information of the assessment proceedings and the Ld.AR mentioned that non-compliance of notices before the CIT(A) is not a wanton act or deliberate act and the assessee has a good case of merits and shall substantiate with material evidences and prayed for an opportunity before the Lower authorities. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the order of CIT(A).
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima facie CIT(A) has passed the order considering the facts that there is no compliance in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and notices were issued. Therefore, CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismiss the appeal ex-parte confirming the action of the Assessing Officer. Whereas the CIT(A) has issued notices on various dates referred at Para 4 of the order but there was no response. Whereas the assesse has raised grounds of appeal challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer and there could be various reasons for non-appearance/ non-compliance which cannot be overruled. Therefore, considering the facts, circumstances, submissions and principles of natural justice, we shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case with evidences and information. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issue to 4 Baliram Krishna Darade
the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal. And the grounds of appeal of the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th October, 2026. (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated: 16th October, 2026 Abhishek Mohan आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अिीिार्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभागीयप्रतितिति, आयकरअिीिीयअतिकरण, “A” बेंच, पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गार्डफ़ाइि / Guard File. 5. ////
आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER, Sunil Kumar Kumar More More Date: 2026.10.25 10:33:53
More judgments on Section 148A
- Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs ITO Ward 5(1), JaipurITA 21/JPR/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2124/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026