VISHWANATH MADHAV JAWALE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 806/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2012-13Bench: 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) had not passed a speaking order and had dismissed the appeal by merely affirming the AO's action. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was against an order upholding an addition of Rs. 48,13,424/-. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) on multiple occasions and did not provide adequate substantiation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without passing a speaking order and without adjudicating the issues on merits, especially when the assessee failed to appear on multiple dates?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 147

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 Appellant: Shri Sharad A. Shah and Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya
For Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Hearing: 13.05.2025Pronounced: 14.05.2025

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment order dated 25.12.2019 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act.

2.

With the assistance of both the sides, we have perused the record and find that the assessee failed to appear on more than eight occasions before ld.CIT(A) and could not substantiate with credible evidence and submissions to plead the grounds of appeal raised against the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Ld. Departmental Representative did not oppose if the matter is restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication.

3.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Assessee has been subjected to addition of Rs.48,13,424/- for the assessment completed for A.Y. 2012-13. Appeal filed before ld.CIT(A) was subsequently not followed properly and no details were filed on various dates of hearing of which couple of dates of hearing relate to the covid-19 pandemic period. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee merely affirming the action of the AO. We further observe that ld.CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) has held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order.

4.

Under the given facts and circumstances and considering the fact that ld.CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order, we deem it proper to restore the issues on merit to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Assessee is directed to provide latest email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary 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.

5.

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

Order pronounced on this 14th day of May, 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 →