RAJENDRA MARUTRAO GADEPATIL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-9(5), PUNE, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order did not decide the substantive grounds of appeal on merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 was filed against an ex-parte order by the NFAC. The NFAC had noted the assessee's continuous non-appearance in lower appellate proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether the NFAC's ex-parte order adequately adjudicated the substantive grounds of appeal on merits as required by law.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1059222786(1), dated 30.12.2023, involving proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the NFAC has noted the assessee’s continuous non-appearance in the lower appellate proceedings before rejecting the assessee’s
2 ITA.No.263/PUN./2024 contentions vide ex-parte order under challenge. Mr. Mehta could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the NFAC’s order has nowhere decided the assessee’s substantive grounds on merits as contemplated u/sec.250(6) of the Act requiring it to give points for determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereof. Faced with the situation, I deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the NFAC for it’s afresh adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 01.05.2024.
More judgments on Section 147
- 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
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Acc LTD. vs. Secy.Industries Deptt.Orissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Kumaran Transports (Tuticorin) Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner Madras · 16 Oct 2026