ARPITA VENKATESH CHOULWAR,KOTHRUD PUNE vs. ITO WD-3, PUNE

ITA 2306/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 January 2026AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and found that the assessee's written submission was not considered by the CIT(A). Without deciding on merits, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file an income tax return for AY 2016-17. Based on information of immovable property purchase worth Rs. 60,29,000/-, an ex-parte assessment was completed by the AO, adding the amount as unexplained investment. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte without considering her submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's submissions, thereby violating natural justice, and the validity of the assessment and addition of unexplained investment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(d),Section 148,Section 139,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora
For Respondent: Smt. Neha Thakur (Virtual)
Hearing: 20.01.2026Pronounced: 30.01.2026

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the 2 prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

3.

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “The appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal, which

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 148A(d)

All 544 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →