DNYANESHWAR NIVRUTTI KALE,AHMEDNAGAR V. ITO, WARD(1), AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 174/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Dnyaneshwar Nivrutti Kale, the appellant, who contested an addition of Rs.1.50 crore as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The addition was based on a cash deposit linked to the assessee, which was identified during the assessment of Shree Ambika Distributors. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was initially dismissed due to a delay of 130 days, which the CIT(A) did not condone. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adequately consider the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the assessee's ability to respond to notices, as he was reportedly bedridden with COVID-19 for over six months. The Tribunal referenced several Supreme Court judgments that support a more lenient approach towards procedural delays caused by reasonable circumstances, such as health issues during a pandemic.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 779597 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation In re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC), Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107, Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), Raheem Shah & ANR Vs Govind Singh & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL No.4628 OF 2023, dated 24.07.2023]
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P. MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHOR B. PHADKE
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 2

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.174/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dnyaneshwar Nivrutti Kale, Bank of Baroda Colony, Balikashram Road, Ahmednagar – 414 001 Maharashtra PAN : DDJPK0478P Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is against the order dated 23.10.2024 of CIT(A)/NFAC, passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 16.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and return for A.Y. 2017-18 e filed on 31.10.2017 declaring income of Rs.5,62,590/-. Ld. Assessing Officer observed in the assessment of Shree Ambika Distributors observed that cash deposit of Rs.1.57 crore belongs to the assessee. Case of the assessee reopened by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act. There was no compliance to the statutory Appellant by : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Respondent by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 22.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 15.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.174/PUN/2025 Dnyaneshwar Nivrutti Kale 2 notices u/s.148, u/s.144 as well as notices u/s.142(1) of the Act. In the absence of any response, ld. AO made addition of the said sum of Rs.1.50 crore in the hands of assessee as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. 3. Against the said addition assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but with a delay of 130 days. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal assailing the exparte impugned order. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Addition of Rs.1.50 has been challenged by the assessee in the instant appeal but a perusal of the assessment order as well as ld.CIT(A) would indicate that there was no participation by the assessee in the proceedings before the lower authorities. Notices u/s.142(1) were issued during covid-19 pandemic outbreak period restrictions. Assessee in the statement of facts given before ld.CIT(A) has stated that appellant was tested with Covid-19 positive. He was under bed rest at village for more than six months etc. He was unaware of the notices and therefore he could not respond to the notices issued by the authorities. Albeit, ld.CIT(A) has extracted the said statement of facts but he chose to dismiss the appeal without condoning the delay. Almost two years period have been removed out of the limitation period by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation In re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC) considering the difficulties faced by the litigants. Therefore, Ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.174/PUN/2025 Dnyaneshwar Nivrutti Kale 3 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) as ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A). 5. The appellate remedy or forum is created by the statute is to rest the dispute and not to accelerate for higher forum perfunctorily. We would like to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raheem Shah & ANR Vs Govind Singh & Ors [CIVIL APPEAL No.4628 OF 2023, dated 24.07.2023], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with tax litigation, held that the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC being a quasi- judicial authority was expected to adopt justice oriented approach rather resorting to iron-cast technical one however the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC came to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of delay. 6. Considering the totality of facts and without offering any comments on merits of the case, we deem it fit to set-aside the impugned order and remit all the issues to the file of Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for de-novo adjudication and pass a speaking order in terms of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Assessee is at liberty to adduce all the requisite documents to substantiate the nature and source of cash deposit. Assessee is directed to update email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.174/PUN/2025 Dnyaneshwar Nivrutti Kale 4 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 15th day of October, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 15th October, 2025. Satish 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, “A” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "