AVINASH RAJENDRAKUMAR GHOLAP ,PUNE vs. ITO WD-14(5), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1933/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 October 2026AY 2016-176 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was to be set aside for de-novo adjudication. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee had not filed a return under section 139(1), a notice under section 148 was issued. It was an admitted fact that the assessee did not file a return within 30 days of the section 148 notice. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had filed a return in response to the section 148 notice on March 9, 2022, and provided a copy of this return along with a reply to the AO on March 10, 2022, as evidenced by the e-acknowledgement. This fact was not rebutted by the revenue. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the show cause notice was issued on March 29, 2022, and the assessment order was passed on March 30, 2022, which did not provide proper and sufficient time for the assessee to reply. Therefore, in light of these facts, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded it to the AO for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and for the assessee to provide necessary documents. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Avinash Rajendrakumar Gholap, filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2016-17. This order stemmed from an assessment order passed under sections 147 read with 144B of the Act. The assessee's representative argued that the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a show cause notice on March 29, 2022, with less than one day to respond, and passed the assessment order on March 30, 2022. The assessee also contended that the AO incorrectly stated no return of income was filed in response to the notice under section 148, whereas the return was filed on March 10, 2022, with supporting e-acknowledgement. The assessee claimed the cash deposits were explained by withdrawals in earlier years, supported by a chart showing cash withdrawals between September 30, 2014, and December 24, 2014, and deposits between June 4, 2015, and October 23, 2015. The assessee also mentioned having a Gas Agency, Poultry Farm, and agricultural income.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is valid, considering the short time provided to the assessee to respond to the show cause notice and the alleged factual mistake regarding the filing of the return of income in response to the notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: - The AO issued a show cause notice on March 29, 2022, and passed the assessment order on March 30, 2022, providing insufficient time for response. - The AO incorrectly stated in the assessment order that no return of income was filed in response to the section 148 notice, when the return was filed on March 10, 2022, with supporting e-acknowledgement. - The cash deposits were explained by withdrawals in earlier years, supported by a chart detailing withdrawals and deposits. - The assessee has a Gas Agency, Poultry Farm (income offered under section 44AD), and agricultural income. - Relied on case laws filed in the paper book. Revenue's Contentions: - The revenue strongly opposed the assessee's submissions. - The revenue pointed to large cash withdrawals on a single day (e.g., Rs. 1,50,000, Rs. 9,50,000, Rs. 9,50,000 on September 30, 2014) as indicative of a specific purpose for which the cash was withdrawn, suggesting it was not merely held idle. - Argued that no person would withdraw cash without a requirement, implying the cash was utilized for a purpose. - Requested that the assessment order be confirmed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 148,Section 139(1),Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar, 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 2016-17 on 10.02.2026, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.03.2022.

Submission of Ld. AR :

2.

In this case, the Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer (AO) issued show cause notice on 29.03.2022. The Ld. AR filed copy of the said show cause notice at pages 68-23 of the paper book. The Ld. AR submitted that time allowed by the AO to file the details was less than one day. The AO passed assessment order on 30.03.2022. The Ld. AR submitted that even the copy of reasons recorded for reopening was provided

ITA No.1933/PUN/2026 on 29.03.2022 and the assessment order was passed within one day. The Ld. AR further submitted that there are factual mistake in the assessment order. The Ld. AR submitted that in para 3 of the assessment order, it is mentioned that no return of income has been filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. However, the Ld. AR invited our attention to pages 3-32 of the paper book which was return of income filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Ld. AR submitted that the said return was filed on 10.03.2022. The Ld. AR invited our attention to page 35 of the paper book which was the e-acknowledgement dated 10.03.2022 demonstrating that the assessee filed reply along with copy of income tax return. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had explained source of cash deposits. The Ld. AR submitted that the source of cash deposits was withdrawal of the assessee in earlier year. The Ld. AR submitted the chart wherein cash withdrawals and cash deposit are mentioned which is as under:

ITA No.1933/PUN/2026

Details of the cash deposit is as under :

ITA No.1933/PUN/2026 2.1 The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has withdrawn cash between 30.09.2014 to 24.12.2014 and the same cash was deposited in the bank between 04.06.2015 to 23.10.2015. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is having Gas Agency, Poultry Farm and Agricultural income. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had maintained books of account for his Gas Agency business. The Ld. AR submitted that for Poultry Farm business the income has been shown u/s 44AD of the Act and no books of account have been maintained. Similarly, for agricultural income no books of account have been maintained. The Ld. AR also submitted that no personal balance sheet has been maintained by the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee‟s bank is in “Baramati” and the assessee resides in Gholapwadi, Tal.-Indapur which is approximately 20KM away from Baramati.

2.2 On specific question from the Bench that whether the assessee has gone repeatedly to Baramati only to withdraw cash and keep it ideal, the Ld. AR could not answer. The Ld. AR relied on the case laws filed in the paper book.

Submission of Ld. DR :

3.

The Ld. DR strongly opposed the submissions of the Ld. AR and invited our attention to copy of the bank statement filed by the assessee in the paper book and submitted that on 30.09.2014 the assessee has withdrawn cash three times, first Rs.1,50,000/-, then Rs.9,50,000/- and then again Rs.9,50,000/-. The Ld. DR submitted that it is impossible for a person to withdraw cash in such a way on same day without any specific requirement. The Ld. DR submitted that this explains that the cash was utilized for some purpose for which

ITA No.1933/PUN/2026 the assessee had withdrawn it. The Ld. DR submitted that similar are the other bank entries. Therefore, the Ld. DR requested that assessment order may be confirmed. The Ld. DR submitted that no person will go to bank will to withdraw cash if cash was not required.

Findings and Analysis :

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. On perusal of the assessment order, it is an admitted fact that the assessee had not filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for AY 2016-17. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee based on information regarding cash deposits. Admittedly, the assessee had not filed return of income within 30 days of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act. In the assessment order at para 3, the AO has mentioned that no return of income was field by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 30.03.2021. However, it is noted that the assessee had filed return of income in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act on 09.03.2022. On perusal of the e-acknowledgement filed by the assessee in the paper book, it is noted that the assessee had provided copy of the said return along with assessee‟s reply on 10.03.2022 to the AO. These facts have not been rebutted by the Ld. DR. It is also noted that show cause notice was issued on 29.03.2022 and the assessment order was passed on 30.03.2022. Thus, admittedly no proper and sufficient time was provided to the assessee to reply show cause notice. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside assessment order to the AO for de-novo adjudication. The AO shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall provide necessary documents. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

ITA No.1933/PUN/2026

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd October, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 22-10-2026 Ravi Kumar आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, „A‟ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्डफ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, Digitally signed by Sunil Kumar // True Copy // Sunil Kumar More More Assistant Registrar Date: 2026.10.25 12:26:47 +05'30' आयकरअपीलीयअदिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →