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

ITA 1231/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Devtech M2M Limited, which appealed against the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2020-21. The primary contention was the addition of Rs.4,88,11,764 made by the Assessing Officer under sections 143(3) r.w.s. 144B and 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to unsubstantiated creditworthiness of a loan and disallowance of certain expenditures. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on the merits. The Tribunal, acknowledging the assessee's failure to comply with notices due to an employee's mistake, restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits, imposing a cost for non-compliance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 834440 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONAL L SONKAVDE
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHOR B PHADKE
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 68

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 ITA No.1231/PUN/2025 Assessment year : 2020-21 Devtech M2M Limited 4th Floor, Sava House, Opp New Airport Road, Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Pune PAN: AADCB4376Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department by : Smt Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 03-02-2026 Date of pronouncement : 04-02-2026 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 19.03.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2020-21. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the addition of Rs.4,88,11,764/- made by the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 22.09.2022. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.1231/PUN/2025 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing of electrical machinery and apparatus. It filed its return of income on 14.01.2021 declaring nil income. The case was selected for limited scrutiny to verify the following: a) High Creditors/liabilities b) Deduction on Account of Donation for Scientific Research 4. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the assessee made some part compliance. The Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings noted that the assessee could not substantiate with documentary evidence regarding the creditworthiness of Mrs. Suvarna Vinod Jadhav from whom the assessee has received unsecured loan of Rs.4,86,67,784/- during the year. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and relying on various decisions, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.4,86,67,784/- by invoking the provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Similarly, the Assessing Officer, on the basis of Form 3CL submitted by the assessee, determine the eligible expenditure at Rs.17.09 lakhs as allowable expenditure out of the expenditure claimed by the assessee at Rs.18,52,980/- and made addition of Rs.1,43,980/- by disallowing the same. 5. Since the assessee did not make any submission before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC despite number of opportunities, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assesse by sustaining the addition / disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.1231/PUN/2025 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that due to some mistake on the part of employee of the assessee, the assessee could not communicate the notices issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC for which all these unfortunate events happened. Further, he has not decided the appeal on merit and has simply dismissed for want of prosecution. He submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details. 8. The Ld. DR on the other hand referring to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has given as many as 4 opportunities out of which the assessee sought an adjournment on one occasion and did not comply to the notices issued on the other 3 occasions. Therefore, some cost should be levied on the assessee for such non-compliance. 9. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that due to persistent non- compliance of the assessee to the statutory notices issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, he was constrained to pass the ex-parte order dismissing the Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.1231/PUN/2025 appeal filed by the assessee. It is also an admitted fact that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has not decided the appeal on merit as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which reads as under: “250….. …..…… (6) The order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.” 10. Since the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in the instant case has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and has not decided the appeal on merit, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to submit the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. At the same time, because of the non-compliance attitude of the assessee in not complying to the statutory notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, we levy a cost of Rs.2,000/- on the assessee to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the order. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.1231/PUN/2025 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 4th February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 4th February, 2026 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 03.02.2026 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 03.02.2026 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Office Superintendent 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "