KALPANA RAVISH MARU,MALEGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, MALEGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1724/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 November 2025AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Divine Infra Company Private Limited v. CIT (2025) 171 taxman.com 92 ruled that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide a ground not arising from the impugned order of the first appellate authority, the present case involves a legal issue that goes to the root of the additions. Citing the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgment in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), the Tribunal admitted the legal issue. In the larger interest of justice and fairness, the Tribunal decided to remit all issues raised in the appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication as contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) is directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The effective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kalpana Ravish Maru, is an individual whose income for Assessment Year 2015-2016 was declared as Rs. 40,520/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after issuing a notice under Section 148, based on information regarding cash deposits and purchase of immovable property. The assessee failed to respond, leading to a best judgment assessment under Section 144, with additions totaling Rs. 2,01,26,224/-, resulting in assessed income of Rs. 2,01,66,744/-. The assessee appealed to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A), but failed to appear for multiple hearings. Consequently, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, upholding the AO's order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide a legal issue that was not decided by the first appellate authority, even if raised before the Tribunal? (Question of law, turning on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and the scope of appeal under Section 250 of the Act). Assessee's contention: The assessee's counsel requested one more opportunity before the CIT(A) due to non-compliance, implying a desire for the issues to be adjudicated on merits. The assessee also raised a legal issue challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction under Section 148. Revenue's contention: The Departmental Representative supported the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

I.T.A.No. 1724/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-2016) Kalpana Ravish Maru, ITO, Ward-1, Malegaon S.No. 315, BI No.3, Pitam, Near SBI Bank, Malegaon, Maharashtra vs. PAN : BQBPM 6349 E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dhiraj Dandgaval, CA For Revenue : Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR Date of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated 15/05/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”), which is arising out of assessment order u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 15/02/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.

2 ITA.No.1724/PUN./2025 (Kalpana Ravish Maru) 2. The assessee has raised five grounds of appeal, in which effectively legal issue has been raised in ground No.1 challenging the validity of assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 148 of the Act, and on merits, ground Nos. 2 to 4 have been raised against the additions on account of unexplained cash deposits and unexplained investment, totaling to Rs. 2,01,66,744/- .

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal on account of non-compliance and requested for providing one more opportunity.

4. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A).

5.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and declared income of Rs. 40,520/- in the return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 filed on 12/03/2022. Based on certain information about cash deposits and purchase of immovable property, re-assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act carried-out after issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. However, assessee failed to respond, resulting into best judgment assessment u/s. 144 of the Act passed by the Ld.AO after making additions of Rs. 2,01,26,224/- and assessed the income at Rs. 2,01,66,744/-.

3 ITA.No.1724/PUN./2025 (Kalpana Ravish Maru) 6. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.AO, assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on 21/04/2023, but failed to respond to the notices fixing the date of hearing on 09/01/2025, 27/01/2025, 23/04/2025 & 13/05/2025. Due to such non-compliance, Ld.CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Ld.AO.

7.

Before us, the prayer has been made for affording one more opportunity to go before the Ld.CIT(A). In the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, we deem it proper to remit back all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). Admittedly, the legal issue has been raised for the first time before this Tribunal. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Divine Infra Company Private Limited v. CIT (2025) 171 taxman.com 92 has held that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to proceed to decide the ground which did not arise from the impugned order passed by the first appellate authority irrespective of such ground was raised in first appeal or not. However, since the legal issue goes to the root cause to the impugned additions, we in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), admit the legal issue and remit back all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then decide the issues in 4 ITA.No.1724/PUN./2025 (Kalpana Ravish Maru) accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 19.11.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →