SAVITA KAMLAKAR BIRAJDAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LATUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2190/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 January 2026AY 2012-2013Bench: SHRI R.K. PANDA (Vice President), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 146-day delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A)'s order, which dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and confirmed the AO's findings without adjudicating on merits, violated Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication on merits, subject to the assessee providing all requisite documents and cooperating with the proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file an income tax return for AY 2012-13. The case was reopened under Section 147 due to an unexplained investment of Rs. 31,00,000 in immovable property. The AO made an ex-parte addition under Section 69, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, confirming the AO's order. The assessee claimed non-compliance was due to her and her son's severe health issues and requested an opportunity to present her case on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution and confirming the addition without adjudicating on the merits, and whether the assessee should be given a fresh opportunity to explain the source of investment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 69,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE- & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Vaze
For Respondent: Shri Harish Bist (Through Virtual)

निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Savita Kamlakar Birajdar, ITO, Ward – 2, Latur C/o Manisha S Rane, Flat No. F-1201, Empire Vs. Square, Chinchwad, Pune- 411019 PAN : ASVPB1047R अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sharad A Vaze Department by : Shri Harish Bist (Through Virtual) Date of hearing : 04-12-2025 Date of 28-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER

PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM :

1.

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.02.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY) 2012-13.

2.

There is a delay of 146 days in filing of this appeal. The Ld. AR has filed an application for condonation of delay along with a sworn affidavit stating the reason therein for such delay. After hearing both the sides and the considering the contents of the affidavit and other supporting documents on record, we find that there is a reasonable cause for filing the appeal with delay. Therefore, in the light of the judgment(s) of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107] and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay of 146 days in 2 AY 2012-13 filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

1. The Ld. AO erred in law and on facts in completing assessment u/s 144 without affording adequate opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

2. The Ld. AO erred in treating the entire investment of 31,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69, ignoring the fact that appellant's share was only 50% of the purchase value.

3. The Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the explanation and evidences filed by the appellant regarding the sources of investment.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of the AD without adjudicating on the submissions filed, thereby rendering the order Invalid in law.

5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, or withdraw any ground at the time of hearing.”

4.

It is a case of an ex-parte assessment under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. She did not file her return of income for A.Y. 2012-13. The case of the assessee was reopened by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) under section 147 of the Act based on the information provided by the “Sub-

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →