Vimala Sohanlal Mehta, Solapur V. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Solapur

ITA 26/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Vimala Sohanlal Mehta, an individual engaged in the business of footwear, who appealed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Pune, which set aside the original assessment order for the assessment year 2011-12. The original assessment was based on a return filed by the assessee declaring a total income of Rs.3,75,400, following a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to substantial cash deposits in her bank account. The Principal Commissioner later found that the Assessing Officer had not adequately examined the source of these deposits and issued a show-cause notice under section 263, leading to the reassessment order. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Principal Commissioner's decision to reassess the case due to insufficient examination of the deposits' source.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137480 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MOHIT PARMAR
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 148; 263; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.26/PUN/2023 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vimala Sohanlal Mehta, 4112, Khanapur Road, Barshi, Dist. Solapur- 413401. PAN : AZIPM2368L Vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Solapur. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax- 4, Pune [‘PCIT’] dated 30.03.2021 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing the present appeal by 584 days. The appellant had filed the condonation petition stating that the delay of 584 days had occurred on account Assessee by : Shri Mohit Parmar Revenue by : Shri Kailash Mangal Date of hearing : 14.06.2023 Date of pronouncement : 05.07.2023 ITA No.26/PUN/2023 2 of ill health and after excluding the delay of Covid-19 period, there is a delay of 309 days in filing the appeal. The delay was caused in filing the present appeal on account of ill health of her daughter, who subsequently succumbed to death on 08.05.2023. In support of this, he also filed medical certificate etc. The averments made in the condonation petition remain un-controverted, therefore, it is a fit case for condonation of delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of footwear. No regular Return of Income was filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 on 15.03.2018 on receipt of the information that the assessee had deposited Rs.35,69,000/- with Vishweshwar Sah. Bank Ltd. during the financial year 2010-11. In response to notice u/s 148, the appellant had filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,75,400/-. Subsequently, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Solapur (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 28.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at a total income of Rs.8,07,131/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer estimated ITA No.26/PUN/2023 3 the profit @ 8% of Rs.99,74,550/- being cash deposited in the bank account. 4. Subsequently, the ld. PCIT, on examination of the assessment record, formed an opinion that the Assessing Officer had merely accepted the claim of the assessee that the source of cash deposits is out of the business receipts of trading in footwear without examining any documentary evidence such as licence, purchase & sale bills etc. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT proposed the revision of the assessment and issued a show-cause notice u/s 263 dated 12.02.2021 calling upon the appellant to show-cause as to why the assessment order should not be set-aside. No explanation was filed in response to the said show-cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act. In the circumstances, the ld. PCIT set-aside the assessment order to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to reframe the assessment in accordance with law. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Since the assessee had not filed any explanation before the ld. PCIT in response to show-cause notice u/s 263, no pleadings ITA No.26/PUN/2023 4 were made before us, as to how the ld. PCIT was wrong in exercising jurisdiction u/s 263, we are of the considered opinion that the ld. PCIT had rightly exercised the jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 05 th day of July, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 05 th July, 2023. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-4, Pune. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.