KISHOR JAGANNATH SATAV,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4), PUNE

Assessment Year : 2014-15 Kishor Jagannath Satav, The Income Tax Officer, Fadai Chowk, Nagar Road, Ward – 12(4), Pune Wagholi, Taluka-Haveli, Vs. Pune-412207 PAN : ETAPS5826K अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Digambar Surwase Department by : Shri Manish Mehta Date of hearing : 20-01-2026 Date of 27-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER

PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM :

1. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, the order passed under section 250 by CITIA) NFAC, Delhi dismissing the appeal without sending physical hearing notices to appellant is illegal, unlawful and against the principle of natural justice. The appellant prays for appropriate relief.

2. On facts and circumstances of case and in laws, the order passed under section 250 by CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dismissing the appeal on ground of non-cooperation by appellant is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principal of natural justice. The appellant prays for appropriate relief.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, CITIA) NFAC erred in not passing a speaking order on submission made by appellant. The appellant prays for just, fair and appropriate relief.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant submit that the order of learned A.O. u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, and weight of evidence, probabilities and facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, it is liable to be quashed.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming assessment order passed on the basis of invalid notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

6. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in concluding that assessment order was passed by following decision of GKN Driveshaft vs. ITO 2003 259 ITR 19(SC) and Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Asian Paints Ltd. vs. DCIT (2008) 29 ITR 90 (Bom). 7. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming assessment reopened on the basis of vague reasons recorded. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.55,50,000/- to returned income of the appellant. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming the interest charged under section 234A and section 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”

4. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC there was non-compliance of notice(s) of hearing and the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and endorsed the findings of the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”). The Ld. AR submitted that such non-compliance resulted because the notices were issued on email-id which was not regularly accessed by the assessee and in spite of specific request made by the assessee in Form No. 35 for not sending the notices/communication on email-id, the all notices and the impugned appellate order was sent on the assessee‟s email-id. The assessee thus being unaware about the said notices, failed to make the necessary compliances. He, therefore, urged that the matter may be sent back to the AY 2014-15 file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication afresh on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

order accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are therefore allowed for statistical purposes.