ANKUR RAJNIKANT MEHTA,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-9(3), PUNE, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was also directed to respond to notices and produce all necessary documents without seeking adjournments.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an individual, did not file an Income Tax Return for AY 2015-16. Based on information regarding various transactions (shares, immovable property, time deposit), the case was reopened under Section 148, and the assessment was completed under Sections 147, 144, and 144B, determining a total income significantly higher than what the assessee later returned. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC subsequently dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-appearance and lack of response.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and if the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 148,Section 148A(d),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A
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
ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2015-16.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed return of income for the year under consideration. On the basis of information available with the Department that the assessee has purchased equity shares of Rs.7,64,650/-, sold equity shares of Rs.7,58,613/-, sold immovable property of Rs.1,91,09,000/- and purchased time deposit of Rs.72,58,111/- and has not furnished his return of income, the case was reopened and notice u/s 148 was issued after passing order u/s 148A(d) of the IT Act. The assessee furnished income tax return in response to above notice declaring income of Rs.18,24,850/-. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2), 142(1) and show-cause notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee furnished part information before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining total income at Rs.2,68,66,208/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.18,24,850/-. The above assessed income includes addition on account of sale of immovable property of Rs.1,51,09,000/-, addition towards business income of Rs.19,84,398/-, addition of Rs.54,90,203/ u/s 69A of the IT Act and addition of Rs.24,57,757/- towards short terms capital gains.
Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent/ did not furnish any response, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
It the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal before us, however, it was the sole prayer of the assessee to provide one opportunity to appear before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC so that the assessee can substantiate the grounds of appeal for which Ld. DR has not raised any objection.
6. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to produce documents/submissions/evidences, if any, in support of all the grounds of appeal raised before us without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to
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 →- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
