MADHUKAR GANPAT DHAKWAL,MANGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, NEW PANVEL

ITA 2434/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 February 2026AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI RAMA KANT PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)8 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) wrongly invoked Section 249(4)(b) as the assessee, not being a regular tax payee and disputing taxable income, was not liable for advance tax. The order of the CIT(A) for the primary appeal (ITA No. 2434/PUN/2025) was set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication, while a duplicate appeal (ITA No. 2418/PUN/2025) was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee sold immovable property and did not file an income tax return. The AO reopened the assessment, treating the land as non-agricultural and adding Rs. 63,65,000/- as short-term capital gain based on stamp duty value, despite the assessee claiming it was rural agricultural land sold for Rs. 20 lakh. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-payment of advance tax.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-payment of advance tax under Section 249(4)(b) when the assessee disputed tax liability, and whether rural agricultural land should be treated as a capital asset.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 151,Section 50C,Section 250,Section 249(4)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI RAMA KANT PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: CA Hiral
For Respondent: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde

PER SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the same order dated 25.08.2025 passed by Ld. [CIT(A)] NFAC, Delhi for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1.

Ground No. 1:

1.1.

On the facts and circumstances of the cases and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre ['the Ld. CIT(A)') failed to consider that the Income Tax Officer, Ward 7, Panvel ('the AO") had erred in issuing notice under section ('u/s') 148 of the Income Tax A

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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →