VASANT SUDAM BHASE,DEHU GAO PUNE vs. ASSESSMENG UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2558/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 December 2025AY 2023-243 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the rival contentions and the record, observed that the assessee had failed to furnish replies or documentary evidence before the CIT(A) on the scheduled hearing dates, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. However, the assessee's counsel pleaded for one more opportunity before the CIT(A) due to unavoidable circumstances. In the larger interest of justice and to be fair to both parties, the Tribunal decided to restore all issues raised before it to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the submissions to be filed by the assessee and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, passing a speaking order as per section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was also directed to update their contact details on the Income Tax website. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Vasant Sudam Bhase, an individual, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune, against the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 31.10.2025. This order arose from an assessment under section 144 read with section 142(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, passed on 21.02.2025 for Assessment Year 2023-24. The Assessing Officer (AO) had assessed the income at Rs. 35,74,319/-, making additions of Rs. 23,56,984/- to the declared income of Rs. 12,17,335/-. The assessee had appealed to the CIT(A), but failed to furnish any reply or documentary evidence on multiple hearing dates. Consequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, affirming the AO's action. The assessee is challenging this dismissal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts by holding that the appellant failed to submit supporting submissions for the grounds of appeal, despite the appellant claiming to have submitted all information and documents during the appeal before the CIT(A)? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the income from sub-leasing rental property (open land) to companies like "Mahindra & Mahindra" constitutes business income and not income from other sources? (Question of law) 3. Whether the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the Assessing Officer's view that the declaration of sub-letting income on a presumptive basis treated it as business income? (Question of law) 4. Whether the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts by not granting sufficient time to the appellant to submit information in support of the appeal filed before the CIT(Appeal)? (Question of fact and law) 5. Whether the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in law and on facts by not appreciating the case laws cited by the appellant, specifically mentioning "Chennai Properties" and "Rayala Corporation"? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that they failed to file submissions before the CIT(A) due to unavoidable circumstances and sought one more opportunity for a hearing. They also relied on the Supreme Court decision in "Chennai Properties" and the "Rayala Corporation" case law. Revenue's contentions: The Departmental Representative supported the order of the learned CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 142(1),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH,

Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

आदेश/ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT Appeal (NFAC), Delhi u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 31.10.2025 which is arising out of Order passed u/s.144 r.w.s 142(1) of the Act dated 21.02.2025.

2.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. The learned CIT (Appeals) Income Tax Department erred in law and on facts that appellant failed to submit supporting submission in Support of Grounds of Appeal as while submitting the Appeal before CIT submitted all the information & documents

2. The learned CIT (Appeals)) Income Tax Department erred that Appellant sub leasing rental property -Open Land to the Companies namely "Mahindra & Mahindra "is a business income and not income from other Sources.

3.

The learned CIT (Appeals)) Income Tax Department erred that Appellant that declaration of subletting income on presumptive basis treating them as Business Income & view of Assessing Officer confirmed in the order 4. The learned CIT (Appeals)) Income Tax Department erred in law and on facts that Appellant has not given sufficient time to submit the information in support of appeal submitted before CIT(Appeal) 5. The leamed CIT (Appeals)) Income Tax Department erred in law and on facts that not appreciating that Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties 277 CTK 185(2015) 119 DR(SC)130, (2015) 373. ITR 673(SC) 2015 231 Таxman 336 & Rayala Corporation case law (2013) 95 DTR(mad) 321 (2014) 264 CTR (Mad) 282.

6.

The Appellant craves leave to add/amend/modify/delete all/any of the grounds of appeal

3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to ground No. 1 submitted that the assessee failed to file the submissions and other details before Ld. CITA) and prayed for affording one more opportunity of hearing before Ld. CIT(A).

4. Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of Ld. CIT(A).

5.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and assessment for A.Y. 2023-24 concluded on 21.02.2025 u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and against the income of Rs. 12,17,335/- declared in the income Tax Return. Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the income at Rs. 35,74,319/- after making additions of Rs. 23,56,984/- We further observe that assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but on the given dates of hearing i.e. 13.06.2025, 23.06.2025, 02.07.2025 and 27.08.2025, assessee failed to furnish any reply nor could supply any documentary evidence in support of his claim. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal affirming the action of the AO.

6. Before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee has prayed for affording one more opportunity of hearing before Ld. CIT(A) as due to unavoidable circumstances compliance could not be made before Ld. CIT(A). Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice Tribunal on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication after duly considering the submissions to be filed by the assessee for which a reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be given. Ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Assessee is also directed to ensure that its correct and latest email address and Mobile No. are updated on the Income Tax Website (In case they are changed). Effective grounds of appeal

raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 19th day of December, 2025.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →