GAURI SHIVAJIRAO JADHAV,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1646/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 January 2026AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, being satisfied with the reasons provided. It held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without addressing the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate her case.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, did not file an income tax return for AY 2018-19. Based on departmental information about the sale of immovable property, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and made an ex-parte addition due to the assessee's non-compliance with statutory notices. Subsequently, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the assessee's belated appeal, filed with a delay of 129 days, without condoning the delay or considering the merits of the case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal due to delay without condoning it or examining the merits. 2. Whether the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 251(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rander
For Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh
Hearing: 13.11.2025Pronounced: 05.01.2026

ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19.

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 prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

1. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal of the appellant merely due to absence of sufficient cause in filing of the appeal, without going into the merits of the addition involved?

2. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in taxing the total consideration without allowing deduction on account of cost of acquisition?

3. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering that by submission of Valuation Report in support of the agreement value of the transaction, the appellant had disputed that Stamp Duty Value and there was a case for making reference to Valuation Officer for determining the Fair Market Value of the Property?

4. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the case of the appellant was a case fit for set aside of the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer under proviso to Sec 251(a) of the Income Tax Act.”

4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed her return of income for the period under consideration. As per the information available with the Department the assessee has sold immovable property for an amount of Rs.95,19,900/- during the period under consideration. Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued after following due procedure. Subsequently, statutory notices u/s 142(1) of the IT Act and SCN u/s 144 of the IT Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee did not make any compliance in response to the above notices, therefore, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 06.03.2023 completed the assessment ex-parte u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act and determined total income at Rs.95,19,900/- as against no return filed by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.95,19,900/- on account of sale of immovable property.

5.

Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was preferred before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the appeal was furnished belatedly i.e. with the delay of 129 days Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay.

6.

It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

7.

We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. It is the sole request of the assessee that if one final opportunity is provided to the assessee she is in a position to substantiate her case before the Assessing Officer. In this regard, we find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay and without going into merits of the case. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to the file of the

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →