POLADPUR TALUKA PRATHAMIK SHIKSHAK SAHKARI PATPHEDHI MARYADIT POLADPUR SHIK,POLADPUR, RAIGAD vs. ITO, WARD 2, PANVEL, PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1457/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 July 2025Bench: DR.MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without delving into the merits of the case, dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. The Tribunal, considering the larger interest of justice and fairness, decided to afford the assessee one more opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Cooperative Society, failed to file its return of income for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notices under Section 148, 143(1), and 142(1) based on information about substantial cash deposits. The assessee did not comply, leading to a best judgment assessment under Section 144, with an addition of Rs. 1.24 crore under Section 69A.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits, and whether the assessee was properly notified of the hearing dates.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 143(1),Section 142(1),Section 69A

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, PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Hearing: 14.07.2025Pronounced: 22.07.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BOARD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 29.03.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 26.02.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative.

3.

We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. Assessee is a Cooperative Society and did not file return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. Based on the information available with the department that assessee has deposited cash more than Rs.10.00 lakh/cash credits with the account held with The Raigad Dist. Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued. Valid statutory notices u/s.143(1) and 142(1) were served upon the assessee. There was no compliance from the assessee’s side. Eventually, ld. Assessing Officer concluded the best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act making addition of Rs.1.24 crore as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) and ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution by holding as under :

“7. The facts of the case as noted above are that the appellant has not pursued the appeal despite being granted opportunities as elaborated above. No details.. documents or submissions have been provided to come to any conclusion other than those arrived at by the assessing officer in the assessment order. During the appellate proceedings the appellant was given opportunities to put forth his case, but he did not upload any response despite service of notice(s). Considering all the facts and the circumstances of the case no interference with the assessment order of the AO is called for. The appellate proceedings cannot be allowed to be held hostage by dilatory tactics on the part of the appellant and a complete disdain for statutory notices. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the Penalty order passed by the assessing officer u/s 144 read with section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 26.02.2024.”

4.

On perusal of the impugned finding of ld.CIT(A), it is manifest that ld.CIT(A) has passed an exparte order without dealing with merits of the case and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for not filing necessary submissions/evidences in support of its grounds of appeal. Apart from the grounds raised on merits, it is further assailed before us vide ground of appeal No.1 that notice(s) of hearing were not sent on the email id mentioned in Form No.35 and therefore the assessee was not aware of the proceedings resulting into exparte assessment.

5.

Under these given facts and circumstances, in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, we deem it proper to afford one more opportunity to the assessee and remit the all the issues raised before us to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the respondent-assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). Assessee is directed to update email id and contact detail on 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 are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced on this 22nd day of July, 2025.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →