AMITABH DATTATRAY BHAGAT,RAIGAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, PANVEL

ITA 2372/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Amitabh Dattatray Bhagat, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which arose from an assessment order under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was the addition of Rs. 77,50,000 to the assessee's income, which was treated as unexplained investment in immovable property. The CIT(A) had dismissed the initial appeal for non-prosecution, leading to the current appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT found merit in providing another opportunity to the assessee to present his case, citing principles of natural justice and relevant judicial precedents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840375 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UDOL RAJ SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD S SHINGTE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2372/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Amitabh Dattatray Bhagat, 293-A, Surakichapada, Karanja, Karanja Urban, Raigad 400 702 Maharashtra PAN : AONPB1146F Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Panvel Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2022-23 is directed against the order dated 25.07.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of Assessment Order dated 30.03.2015 passed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 13 days. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating that he hails from a small village and not much aware about the procedures of income tax compliances. At relevant period, he was engaged in social work and election process which prevented him to verify and comply with the requisite notices and further the Appellant by : Shri Pramod S Shingte Respondent by : Shri Udol Raj Singh Date of hearing : 19.02.2026 Date of pronouncement : 23.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2372/PUN/2025 Amitabh Dattatray Bhagat 2 then consultant also failed to information about the notices. We however considering the reasons stated by the assessee and also adopting justice oriented approach find that the delay is not deliberate and placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 13 days before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine for non - prosecution. He only prayed for affording one more opportunity to plead before ld.CIT(A) on merits of the case. 4. On the other hand, ld. DR did not oppose to the request made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of supply of construction material. Income of Rs.3,59,440/- declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 filed on 15.09.2012. Return processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by validly serving statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and the assessee furnished the response. Ld. Assessing Officer in the scrutiny proceedings observed that the assessee purchased immovable property for total consideration of Rs.77,50,000/-. When the said transaction was confronted to the assessee along with the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2372/PUN/2025 Amitabh Dattatray Bhagat 3 purchase deed, the assessee admitted that land was purchased by his friend but in his name. Ld. Assessing Officer concluded the proceedings treating the said transaction as unexplained as the assessee has failed to explain the source of funds for the said transaction and added the said sum to the total income of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but assessee failed to appear on the given dates of hearing and submit relevant documents. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution without discussing anything on merits of the case. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the impugned exparte order passed by ld.CIT(A). 7. Ostensibly, in the instant case, assessee has not participated in the proceedings before ld.CIT(A) and filed any details despite various opportunities afforded. However, to meet the ends of natural justice and considering the prayer made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, we are of the view that one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to substantiate his case before the ld.CIT(A) Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) being an exparte order and remit the matter back to the file of the ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate this appeal afresh as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceeding shall provide reasonable opportunity Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2372/PUN/2025 Amitabh Dattatray Bhagat 4 to the asseseee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and make satisfactory compliance to the notice(s) of hearing issued by ld.CIT(A) and should refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 23rd day of February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 23rd February, 2026. Satish आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “A” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, / True Copy // Assistant Registrar, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "