Shri Jugalkishore Rathi HUF, Pune V. Income-Tax Officer Ward -1, , Jalna

ITA 381/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Jugalkishore Rathi HUF, who appealed against the orders of the NFAC for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2011-12. The primary issue was the addition of Rs.41,19,438 as unexplained investments in property transactions related to land and subsequent constructions in Jalna. The NFAC had initially not condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing insufficient explanation for the delay. The Tribunal noted a similar case involving another co-owner of the property, where the matter was set aside, and on similar grounds, decided to remit the case back to the NFAC for a fresh decision on merits, including the delay in filing the appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137495 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Deepak Kundanmal Rathi vs. DCIT in ITA No.525/PUN/2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 144

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 Nos.138 to 141 & 381/PUN/2022 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Years : 2007-08 to 2011-12 Shri Jugalkishore Rathi HUF, C/o. Rathi Rathi & Co., Chartered Accountants, 202, Kamal Kirti, Above SBI, Opposite Pu La Deshpane Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune- 411030. PAN : AACHR3234B Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Jalna. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH : These are appeals filed by the assessee directed against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 06.08.2021 and 31.03.2022 for the assessment year 2007-08 to 2011-12 respectively. Assessee by : Shri Parag Rathi Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 27.02.2023 Date of pronouncement : 27.02.2023 ITA Nos.138 to 141 & 381/PUN/2022 2 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in all the above five appeals of the assessee, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.381/PUN/2022 for the assessment year 2008-09 are stated herein. ITA No.381/PUN/2022, A.Y. 2008-09 : 4. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an HUF engaged in the business of dealing in seeds, pesticides and fertilizers. According to the Assessing Officer, Shri Deepak Kundanmal Rathi and Shri Shivratan Motilal Rathi had purchased a piece of land situated at Survey No.4076, Municipal Property No.1- 28-76, Mantha Road, Jalna for a consideration of Rs.21 lakhs. The said property was purchased by Shri Shivratan Motilal Rathi (HUF) and Shri Jugalkishore Kundanmal Rathi (HUF) jointly. The consideration was stated to have been paid from bank account of one Shri Deepak Kundanmal Rathi. Thereafter, construction was undertaken on the said land consisting of one hospital building and 14 flats. The said 14 flats were sold by various buyers and agreement for sale was registered in the capacity of the respective ITA Nos.138 to 141 & 381/PUN/2022 3 HUF. The appellant filed the return of income showing 50% of the property for the assessment year under consideration. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.41,19,438/- being 50% of the share of the land. Accordingly, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 27.02.2015 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) after making the addition on account of cost of investments in consideration as unexplained investments. 5. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the NFAC with delay of 5 years. The assessee had explained the delay stating that the delay had occurred because of the fact that he was ignorant of filing the appeals and for want of coordination among the family members. However, the NFAC had not condoned the delay by placing reliance on the certain judicial precedents saying that the delay had not been properly explained. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 7. Before us, it is submitted that in the case of other co-owner of the property, the issue has been set-aside by this Tribunal in the case of Deepak Kundanmal Rathi vs. DCIT in ITA No.525/PUN/2020 ITA Nos.138 to 141 & 381/PUN/2022 4 for A.Y. 2004-05 dated 29.01.2021. The ld. AR prayed that on the parity of same reasoning, the issue may be restored. 8. On the other hand, ld. DR has no serious objection to restore the matter before the NFAC. 9. Having heard both the parties, we are of the considered opinion that in the case when there is meritorious case for the appellant, the NFAC ought to have condoned the delay and decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly, we remit the matter back to the file of the NFAC for de novo adjudication. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.381/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2008-09 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos.138 to 141/PUN/2022, A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2009-10 to 2011-12 : 11. Since the facts and issues involved in remaining four appeals of the assessee are identical, therefore, our decision in ITA No.381/PUN/2022 for A.Y. 2008-09 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.138 to 141/PUN/2022 for A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2009-10 to 2011-12 respectively. Accordingly, the remaining four appeals of the ITA Nos.138 to 141 & 381/PUN/2022 5 assessee in ITA Nos.138 to 141/PUN/2022 for A.Ys. 2007-08 & 2009-10 to 2011-12 stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. 12. To sum up, all the above five appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 27 th day of February, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 27 th February, 2023. 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.