AMOL PRAKASH SANKPAL,SANGLI V. ITO, WARD2, SANGLI, SANGLI

ITA 1677/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Amol Prakash Sankpal, an individual appointed as a business correspondent for the Bank of Maharashtra, who filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18. The AO had made an addition of Rs.56,81,000 to the total income under Section 68 of the IT Act, citing unexplained cash deposits. The assessee's return was initially selected for scrutiny, and due to non-compliance with notices, the AO completed the assessment ex-parte under Section 144, significantly increasing the declared income. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal due to the absence of the assessee, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24570 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P. MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: UMESH KR. MADHUKAR MALI
• Section: 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1677/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Amol Prakash Sankpal, Daphalapur Jath, Sangli, Sangli- 416402. PAN : BYJPS7584K Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Sangli. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.11.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. AO erred in making addition to total income of Rs.56,81,000/- U/s 68 without considering facts and circumstances of the case. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. AO erred in making addition to total income of Rs.56,81,000/- U/s 68 Assessee by : Shri Umesh Kr. Madhukar Mali Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 19.11.2024 Date of pronouncement : 29.11.2024 ITA No.1677/PUN/2024 2 without giving proper show cause notice and by violating principles of natural justice. 3. The appellant crave, leave to, add to, alter or amend the aforesaid grounds of appeal.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual appointed as business correspondent of Bank of Maharashtra & filed his return of income for the period under consideration on 28.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,22,790/-. The said return of income was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT Act were issued to the assessee. Since the assessee failed to comply with the aforesaid notices, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 on a total income of Rs.60,03,790/- as against the income declared by the assessee in its return of income at Rs.3,22,790/-. Above assessed income includes unexplained cash deposits of Rs.56,81,000/-. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & AO is not ITA No.1677/PUN/2024 3 justified. It was submitted that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was required to pass order on merits of the case by deciding each ground of appeal separately but the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without going into the merits of the case is in complete disregard of section 250(6) of the IT Act, which mandates that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has to decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly, it was requested before the Bench to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and further requested to provide one opportunity so that the assessee can substantiate his case before the Assessing Officer. 5. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and requested to confirm the same. 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has decided the appeal ex-parte without going into the merits of the case. It is the sole contention of the counsel of the assessee that the email of the erstwhile counsel was mentioned on the e-portal, who did not informed him about the ex-parte orders & ITA No.1677/PUN/2024 4 therefore he changed his counsel & filed this appeal before the Tribunal. It is the submission of the counsel of the assessee that the assessee is a business correspondent of Bank of Maharashtra & providing banking facility to the small clients of the bank, & the deposit in the bank was during the course of providing business correspondent facility. In the absence of knowledge of hearing notices the assessee cannot appear either before the AO or before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. We find some force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee & in the interest of justice, without going into merits of the case, we set-aside the impugned ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to the file of the AO to pass assessment order afresh as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is hereby also directed to respond to the notices issued by the AO in this regard and produce relevant documents/evidences in support of his case, otherwise Ld. AO shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed. ITA No.1677/PUN/2024 5 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 29th day of November, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 29th November, 2024. 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, “A” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "