LAXMANRAO AKARAM PATIL,TASGAON vs. DCIT, SANGLI, SANGLI

ITA 588/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 February 2026AY 2017-18Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)6 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that both the original assessment and the first appeal dismissal were ex-parte. Considering the assessee's contention that the ex-parte nature and delay were due to their erstwhile counsel's failure to inform them, and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay in the current appeal. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the entire matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and the assessee to comply with notices.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in the business of sale of bedana, filed an income tax return of Rs. 15,33,820. Due to non-compliance with statutory notices, the Assessing Officer completed an ex-parte assessment under section 144, determining an income of Rs. 1,65,82,968/-, which included additions for estimated net profit, WDV difference, unexplained cash deposits under section 68 during demonetization, and unexplained agricultural income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's first appeal without adjudication due to a significant delay of 4 years and 6 months in filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment and additions made without a show-cause notice were valid; Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned; Whether the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Umesh Kumar M Mali
For Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh
Hearing: 18.02.2026Pronounced: 17.03.2026

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by „Ld. CIT(A)‟ NFAC Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. There is delay of 31 days in filing of this appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit duly sworn in by the assessee that the assesse was prevented by reasonable & sufficient cause in not filing this appeal with in prescribed time limit. Accordingly after hearing LD DR we condone the delay & proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

2

3.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1) GROUND No. 1

On the facts and ci

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

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 →