ARTI KAMLESH SHAH,PUNE V. ITO WARD 5(1), PUNE

ITA 2210/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Arti Kamlesh Shah, who did not file her income tax return for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened her case based on information from the Directorate General of Income Tax (DGIT), noting significant financial activities such as the purchase of immovable property and large cash deposits. Despite multiple notices, the assessee initially failed to comply, leading to an addition of Rs.4,62,000 as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed for non-prosecution. Subsequently, the assessee appealed to the ITAT, which found procedural lapses in communication and granted a re-hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474116 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji and others 167 ITR 471
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOURABH NAYAK
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 64; 139(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2210/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Arti Kamlesh Shah, 761/1, Purva Complex, Gadgil Street, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411 038 Maharashtra PAN : ADHPS2225B Vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) which inturn is arising out of the Assessment order passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B dated 23.03.2022. Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date of hearing : 18.12.2024 Date of pronouncement : 24.12.2024 ITA No.2210/PUN/2024 Arti Kamlesh Shah 2 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is and individual who has not filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Based on the information provided by the DGIT, the assessee for the year under consideration inter alia was found to have purchased an Immovable Property, deposited cash of Rs.10.00 lakh and more etc. The case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. Statutory notices u/s.142(1) were also issued. The assessee neither complied with notice u/s.148 nor to the notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 11.02.2022 u/s.144 of the Act was issued to the assessee calling upon her to explain the source of investment for purchase of immovable property and source of cash deposited in the savings bank. The assessee furnished a detailed reply along with return of income filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. Eventually, the AO after considering the submissions made by the assessee, made addition of Rs.4,62,000/- in the hands of assesssee as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved assessee challenged the assessment order before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. ITA No.2210/PUN/2024 Arti Kamlesh Shah 3 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. When the appeal was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. I therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal with the able assistance from the ld. Departmental Representative exparte qua the assessee. 6. At the very outset, I find that the appeal is time barred by 64 days before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition stating that the notices were sent on the email id pertaining to the Tax Consultant who failed to communicate the same to the assessee. The assessee was unaware of the proceedings. Later on, it came to her knowledge that exparte order u/s.250 of the Act was passed by the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. Immediately she took steps for filing the appeal with the help of Senior Tax Consultant. The delay in filing the appeal by 54 days is unintentional. It is therefore prayed to condone the delay in light of various decisions including that of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji and others 167 ITR 471. 7. Having gone through the averments made in the condonation petition I am of the opinion that larger interest of justice has to be taken into consideration while adjudicating the matters. None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits ITA No.2210/PUN/2024 Arti Kamlesh Shah 4 unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bonafides. Further, the assessee would not have gained anything in filing the appeal with delay. Therefore, the delay of 64 days is condoned and I proceed to adjudicate the matter on merits. 8. Coming to merits of the issue, I have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before me. On perusal of the assessment order, it would reveal through the explanation furnished before the AO that the assessee along with her husband, who passed away with heart ailment, had purchased the immovable property. It was also stated that her husband made payments through proper source either from his business or through loan. Further, the fact remains that the assessee could not participate in the proceedings before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC as the notices of hearing remained to be communicated to her by the Tax Consultant. In the event, the ld.CIT(A) passed the impugned order exparte qua the assessee. Considering the facts in entirety and in the interest of natural justice, I am of the opinion that one more opportunity needs to be given to the assessee for representing her case before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. In view thereof, without ITA No.2210/PUN/2024 Arti Kamlesh Shah 5 dwelling into merits of the issue, the issues on merits are being remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo adjudication. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Finding of the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 24th day of December, 2024. - Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 24th December, 2024. Satish ITA No.2210/PUN/2024 Arti Kamlesh Shah 6 आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "