ASHOK RAMCHANDRA PANSE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(1), PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC should have decided the appeal on merits even if it was ex parte. Since the NFAC failed to do so, the matter is remitted back for fresh disposal on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2012-13. The AO made best judgment additions based on cash deposits and contractual receipts, treating them as unexplained money and business income. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal ex parte for non-prosecution.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to decide an appeal on merits even when dismissing it for non-prosecution. Whether the ex parte dismissal by NFAC without considering the merits was correct.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 139(1),Section 144,Section 147,Section 69A,Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- CIT v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)659 citing297 CTR 614 · 2017 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
Assessee by : Shri Saurabh Patil Revenue by : Shri B.S. Rajpurohit Date of hearing : 26.09.2024 Date of pronouncement : 26.09.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM :
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 21.06.2024 passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2012-13.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual, no regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) was filed for the A.Y. 2012-13. Based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit in savings bank account to the tune of Rs.31,70,000/- and also received contractual receipts of Rs.30,460/-, the Assessing Officer (AO) formed an opinion that income escaped assessment to income-tax. Statutory notices u/s.148/142(1) were issued to the appellant. The appellant neither complied with notice u/s.148 nor to notice u/s.142(1). In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 23.12.2019 was constrained to pass best judgment assessment u/s.144 r.w.s.147, bringing to tax the said sums as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act/Income from Business or Profession” respectively.
Being aggrieved by the above additions, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine, without going into merits of the issues in appeal.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.
We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an admitted position that the NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the appellant ex parte for non-prosecution. Further, it is a trite law that the NFAC should have dealt with the merits of the issue in appeal, even in the case of ex parte order. From the perusal of para 5.3 of the impugned order, it would reveal that the NFAC had not gone into the merits of the issue in appeal, merely dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution, which is contrary to the settled position of law. In this regard, reference is being made to a decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. Therefore, we deem it proper to remit the matter to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo disposal of the issues in appeal on merit afresh after allowing reasonable opportunity to the appellant, in accordance with law. We order accordingly.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 26th day of September, 2024.
More judgments on Section 139(1)
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 658/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Nitinbhai Nanalal Badani, Rajkot vs CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal…ITA 485/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Mata Lachmi Rotary Charitable Society… vs Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward - 1…ITA 310/RJT/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- 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
- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026