Madhumati Manojkumar Kheradakar, Sangli V. ITO,Ward 1, Sangli, Sangli

ITA 445/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7745 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.445/PUN/2024 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Madhumati Manojkumar Kheradakar, Plot No.154, Vishwesh, Balaji Nagar, Sangli – 416 416 Maharashtra PAN : ALBPK2760M Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sangli Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 22.02.2024 for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual who did not file Return of Income for the A.Y. 2013-14. As per the Assessment Information System (AST)/ Annual Information Return (AIR), the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the appellant had deposited cash of Rs.13,25,730/- in her savings bank account maintained with ICICI Bank Ltd. It was also noticed that the Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 18.04.2024 Date of pronouncement : 22.04.2024 ITA No.445/PUN/2024 2 appellant had also received rental income and commission amounting to Rs.3,01,681/-. Accordingly, the case was reopened by way of issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act. In the absence of any participation by the appellant, the assessment was completed by the AO u/s.144 r.w.s.147 vide order dated 28.03.2022. Thus, the AO brought to tax the cash deposit of Rs.13,25,730/- as ‘unexplained’ and Rs.3,01,681/- as ‘income received from undisclosed sources’ u/s.69A of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A) who vide impugned order affirmed the AO’s action by holding that the appellant had failed to furnish proper explanation with supporting documentary evidence in support of her claim(s). Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 4. The ld. Authorised Representative submits before me that the appellant’s case could not be represented before the lower authorities for the reasons beyond control of the appellant, thus, prayed for granting one more opportunity to the appellant. 5. I heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the relevant material on record. Admittedly, the assessment in this case was completed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act as the appellant ITA No.445/PUN/2024 3 did not cause any appearance before the lower authorities. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the appellant for non-prosecution. In the said circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that, in the interest of justice, the matter be remanded to the file of AO for de novo assessment in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The appellant is at liberty to lead any fresh evidence as deemed expedient. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 22 nd day of April, 2024. Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दनांक / Dated : 22 nd April, 2024. Satish आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5 . गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.