HARSAL JAGANNATH GAVATE,DHULE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DHULE, DHULE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not decide the grounds of appeal on merit and merely upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer due to non-compliance by the assessee. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2013-14. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on merits. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) failed to decide the grounds of appeal on merit.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating the grounds on merit, and whether the appeal should be restored for denovo adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year: 2013-14 Harsal Jagannath Gavate, V The Income Tax Officer, At Post Khede Dhule, s Ward-1, Dhule. Dist. Dhule – 424302. PAN: BDJPG2600P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Pramod S Shingte –AR Revenue by Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – DR Date of hearing 17/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 21/02/2025 आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] for Assessment Year 2013-14 dated 14.06.2024 passed u/sec.250 of the Income tax Act, 1961. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. On the basis of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice issued u/s. 148 in the instant case may please be cancelled being bad in law.
2. On the basis of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice issued u/s. 148 as well as the assessment order passed u/s. 147 pursuant to said notice may please be quashed being time barred as such the same is issued after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year.
3. On the basis of the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the notice issued u/s. 148 may please be quashed as the same issued for the reason that the appellant has deposited cash in bank account and has not filed the return, when there is no law that appellant should furnish return when there is deposit of cash.
4. On the basis of the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,48,07,600/ u/s. 69A of the Act made by Assessing Officer without confronting the material on the basis of which, the impugned addition is confirmed by the CIT(A).
5. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,48,07,600/- u/s. 69A of the Act by treating the entire credits made to the account held with the co-operative society as unexplained investments.
6. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.1,48,07,600/- u/s 69A of the Act when the provisions of section 69A are not applicable in the case of the appellant.
On the basis of the facts, circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) is not justified in deciding the appeal without merit. On the basis of facts, in the circumstances of the case and without prejudice to other grounds of appeal
, the appeal may be restored back to the file of Assessing Officer.
8. The appellant craves leave to furnish additional evidences in support of his claim in the course of the appellate proceedings.
9. The appellant craves for the addition to, deletion, alteration, modification of the above grounds of appeal.”
2. At the outset, the ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated any of the grounds of appeal and merely dismissed for non- compliance. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard.
3. On the other hand, the ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC].
We have heard both the parties and perused the records placed before us. It is noticed that the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] did not decide the grounds of appeal on merit but merely upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer as assessee has not made any compliance before the ld.CIT(A).
4. Considering the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee and the fact that Assessee could not plead on merits of the case, in the interest of justice and fair to both the parties, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) should give reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass the order in accordance with Law. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to seek adjournment unless otherwise required. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st February, 2025.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026