SAANDIIP SHESHRAO SAGANE, NANDED V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, NANDED, NANDED

ITA 171/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8096 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R.R. POTDAR
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. /ITA No.171/PUN/2024 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Saandip Sheshrao Sagane, Sai Niwas, Behind Tarodaker Market, Manik Nager, Nanded – 431 605 Maharashtra PAN : BJTPS1911H vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Nanded (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri R.R. Potdar For Revenue : Smt. Neha Deshpande Date of Hearing : 14.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 27.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058268441(1), dated 28.11.2023, involving proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee’s sold substantive ground that both the learned lower authorities herein have erred in law and on facts in making section 69A r.w.s.115BBE unexplained investment addition of Rs.11,92,000/-, learned authorized representative vehemently submitted that the assessee could not 2 ITA.No.171/PUN/2024 Saandip Sheshrao Sagane file the relevant evidence because of communication gaps and outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic. He further invited my attention to the assessee’s additional evidence(s) running into 32 pages along confirmation of the concerned parties that the same forms relevant material going to root of the matter which require fresh factual verification by the learned field authorities. 3. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee’s foregoing additional evidence(s) is indeed relevant so as to explain the source of his cash deposits in question. Faced with this situation, I restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance back to the file of learned Assessing Officer to be decided afresh, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing subject to rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus only to plead and prove all facts with the relevant evidence(s) in consequential proceedings. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27 th March, 2024. Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated : 27 th March, 2024 Satish 3 ITA.No.171/PUN/2024 Saandip Sheshrao Sagane Copy to : 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. / /By Order // //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.