GEORGE MOLAKAL MATHEW ,PUNE V. ITO INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD-3, PUNE

ITA 2236/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves George Molakal Mathew, the appellant, who did not file his income tax return for the assessment year 2016-17 despite engaging in significant financial transactions, including high-value credit card payments and property sales. The Income Tax Department, based on these transactions, reopened the assessment under section 147 of the IT Act and issued a notice under section 148. The Assessing Officer, due to the appellant's non-responsiveness, completed the assessment ex-parte, determining a total income significantly higher than reported. The appellant contested this assessment, leading to an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, which set aside the ex-parte assessment and remanded the case for a fresh assessment without addressing the legal grounds raised. The appellant then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, challenging the CIT(A)'s decision and the validity of the assessment reopening.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 827627 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Shamrao Gopal Benake vs. ITO (ITA No.1036/PUN/2025), Eyegaar Optics India Private Limited vs. DCIT (I.T.A.No. 1347/Hyd/2024 and 1291/Hyd/2024), Phoenix Flexibles Private Limited vs. DCIT (ITA No.669/Ahd/2025 and C.O. No.53/Ahd/2025)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMESH PHADE
• Assessee Lawyers: KANCHUN KAUSHAL VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; TDS; Reason to believe
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2236/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2016-17 George Molakal Mathew, P17, Konark Campus, Viman Nagar, Pune- 411014. PAN : AFNPM5238E Vs. ITO, International Tax Word-3, Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Ground No.1: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [CITIA), NFAC] has erred in setting aside the Assessment Order and referring the case back to the Ld. Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment without adjudicating legal grounds (Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the Appellant). It is prayed that the Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC be set- aside and the appeal be sent to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Assessee by : Shri Kanchun Kaushal (Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Umesh Phade Date of hearing : 27.11.2025 Date of pronouncement : 05.01.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2236/PUN/2025 2 Income Tax Appeals-13, Pune [‘CIT(A) Pune-13'] with a direction to decide the appeal afresh, adjudicating all the grounds, including legal grounds raised by the Appellant after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellant as the Order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is contrary to the following Orders of the Hon'ble ITAT :  Shamrao Gopal Benake vs. ITO (ITA No.1036/PUN/2025)  Eyegaar Optics India Private Limited vs. DCIT (I.T.A.No. 1347/Hyd/2024 and 1291/Hyd/2024)  Phoenix Flexibles Private Limited vs. DCIT (ITA No.669/Ahd/2025 and C.O. No.53/Ahd/2025) Ground No. 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in deciding the Appeal of the Appellant even when the Jurisdiction to decide the Appeal was with the Ld. CIT(A) Pune-13 and this fact was mentioned in the Appellant’s letter dated 15 March 2023 addressed to the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC. It is prayed that the due directions be issued for decision on the Appeal of the Appellant by the Ld. CIT(A), Pune-13. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute, withdraw all or any of the above Grounds of Appeal anytime either before or during the hearing of the Appeal.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not furnished his return of income for the period under consideration. On the basis of information available with the Department the assessee was found to have entered into financial transactions such as payment of credit cards bills of more than Rs.24,00,000/- and earned interest income of Rs.60,75,000/- on which TDS u/s 194A was made and sold immovable property of Rs.1,42,00,000/-, however no return was furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, there was reason to believe that the above financial transaction has escaped assessment within the meaning of section Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2236/PUN/2025 3 147 of the IT Act. Accordingly, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act and notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act and show cause notice respectively were also issued to the assessee. Since the assessee was non-responsive the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act and vide order dated 27.03.2022 determined total income at Rs.2,26,79,848/- as against no return filed by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition on account of unaccounted investment of Rs.2,26,79,848/-. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the statement of facts, grounds of appeal and written submissions, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC set-aside the ex-parte assessment order and remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the assessee has raised Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2236/PUN/2025 4 as many as eleven grounds before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, however Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without adjudicating each and every grounds separately, remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for passing the assessment order afresh. We further find that the assessee has also challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the IT Act and also challenged passing of the assessment order by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, however, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not adjudicated these legal grounds. 7. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we find force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that in the light of section 250(6) of the IT Act, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was required to decide each and every ground either factual or legal separately by a speaking order. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and without going into merits of the case, remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)- 13, Pune with a direction to decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law adjudicating each and every ground separately by a speaking order after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)-13, Pune and produce relevant Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2236/PUN/2025 5 documents, explanations and evidences, if any, in support of all the grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)-13, Pune shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 05th day of January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 05th January, 2026. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr.CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "