DEVTECH M2M LIMITED,PUNE V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), PUNE

ITA 1230/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Devtech M2M Limited, a company engaged in manufacturing energy-efficient lighting products, which faced an assessment order for the assessment year 2014-15. The order was based on information from the DDIT, Investigation Unit, alleging unaccounted income and unexplained loans. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 2,22,00,000 to the company's income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the CIT(A) upheld. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, arguing that the CIT(A) had dismissed their appeal without merit due to non-receipt of the last hearing notice. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for a fresh hearing and remanded the case back to the CIT(A).

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 789225 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UODOL RAJ SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHOR B. PHADKE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund; Borrowed satisfaction
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1230/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Devtech M2M Limited, 4th Floor, Sava House, Opp. New Airport Road, Viman Nagar, Pune- 411014. PAN : AADCB4376Q Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 1(1), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned CIT(A)-NFAC (hereinafter referred as CIT(A)) erred in law and on facts in upholding the assessment order passed by learned AO-NFAC (hereinafter referred to as Learned AO) thereby assessing the total income of the appellant at Rs.2,22,00,000 as against NIL returned income. 2. Learned CIT(A) ought to have granted an appropriate opportunity of being heard to the appellant for making requisite Assessee by : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue by : Shri Uodol Raj Singh Date of hearing : 13.11.2025 Date of pronouncement : 24.11.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1230/PUN/2025 2 submission considering the principle of natural justice. The appellant intends to make all the requisite submissions along with related documentary evidence. However, the same could not be submitted since the notices have been inadvertently glossed over by the appellant due to unavoidable circumstances. 3. The learned AO and thereby, learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of ITA 1961 without application of mind & only on the basis of information received from the DDIT(Inv.), Unit-1, Pune through the Insight Portal. The learned IT authorities ought to have appreciated that, - Mr. Vinod Jadhav, a shareholder of company have not extended any loan in AY 2014-15, same is substantiated from submitted audited financials - The said loan of Rs. 2,22,00,000 was extended in AY 2015- 16, same is substantiated from submitted ledger of Mr. Vinod Jadhav in books of appellant. As such appellant contends that, the order passed u/s 147 is bad in law and ought to be quashed as notice u/s 148 is issued in mechanical manner from borrowed satisfaction. 4. Appellant contends that, learned AO in assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of ITA, 1961 as necessary prior approval u/s 151 of ITA, 1961 is obtained in mechanical manner and thereby, order passed u/s 147 is bad in law and void-ab-initio. 5. The learned I-T Authorities erred in law and on facts in invoking section 69A on account of unsecured loans received from Mr. Vinod Jadhav amounting to Rs. 2,22,00,000 without considering appellant's explanation that, Mr. Jadhav provided said loan in A.Y.2015-16 out of explained sources of income. 6. The learned CIT(A), erred in law and on facts in upholding the unsecured loans received from shareholder of appellant company i.e. Mr. Vinod Jadhav amounting to Rs. 2,22,00,000 as unexplained due to alleged failure in submitting relevant documentary evidence. However, learned I-T Authorities failed to appreciate the fact that, appellant had duly submitted ITR and ledger of said lender to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the said lender. 7. Appellant contends that, unsecured loan received is from the shareholder of the appellant company and the same loan has been extended & utilized for the purpose of business. 8. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the foregoing grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing, in the interests of substantial justice.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1230/PUN/2025 3 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of energy efficient lighting products. On the basis of information received From the DDIT, Investigation Unit that total amount of Rs.2.22 crores were credited in assessee’s account and it was also observed payments valuing Rs.83 crore for import of electronics items were sent to out of India, the case of the assessee company was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 and also u/s 142(1) and 143(2) were issued to the assessee. The assessee denied to have received any such payment during the period under consideration. The Assessing Officer not being satisfied with the reply of the assessee since copy of bank statement were not filed made the addition u/s 69A of the Act of Rs.2,22,00,000/- to the income of the assessee and vide order dated 26.03.2022 completed the assessment proceedings by determining total income at Rs.2,22,00,000/- as against no return shown by the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1230/PUN/2025 4 the assessee for want of prosecution without going into merits of the case. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is not justified. Ld. AR submitted before us that on one occasion the assessee sought for adjournment and the last notice unfortunately could not be seen by the assessee which resulted in impugned ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Ld. AR submitted before the bench that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not correct since no such transaction took place during the period under consideration as alleged by the Assessing Officer. However, Ld. AR only requested before the bench to provide one opportunity to appear before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC so that the assessee can substantiate the grounds of appeal raised before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 7. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1230/PUN/2025 5 8. 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 case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act and addition u/s 68 on the basis of alleged bank deposits were made to the income of the assessee. During the first appellate proceedings before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee admittedly asked for adjournment of hearing, however it was contended by the Counsel of the assessee that the last hearing notice could not be seen by the assessee which consequently resulted in passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It was the only request made by the Counsel of the assessee that if one opportunity provided to the assessee he is in a position to substantiate the grounds of appeal and also able to prove that the addition is not correct. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the appeal afresh as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1230/PUN/2025 6 by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to produce relevant documents/evidences/submissions in support of grounds of appeal as well as also raise additional ground, if any, to substantiate its case without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 24th day of November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 24th November, 2025. 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. Printed from counselvise.com "