NAGESH SHRIMANT GAVALI, PUNE V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 5/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2407 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-03-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.5/PUN./2024 Assessment Year 2012-2013 Shri Nagesh Shrimant Gavali, Flat No.402, Sai Sayaji Darshan, behind Bharati Vidyapeeth, Katraj, PUNE- 411 046. PAN AFIPG6355H Maharashtra. vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Income Tax Department, PMT Bldg., 2 nd Floor, Shankarsheth Road, Swargate, PUNE – 411 037. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri Shashank Deogadkar Date of Hearing : 26.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 10.05.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1057676539(1), dated 03.11.2023, in proceedings u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. I have heard learned DR and perused the case file. 3. Suffice to say, the Assessing Officer’s herein had initiated sec.148/147 proceedings against the assessee after recording reasons to believe that he had deposited cash of 2 ITA.No.5/PUN./2024 Rs.25,01,100/- in Vishweshwar Sahakari Bank Ltd., Pune in the relevant previous year Learned DR fails to dispute the clinching fact that the impugned re-assessment dated 26.12.2019 had assessed the assessee’s alleged customer advance(s) in tuition activity(ies) of Rs.63,52,600/- after deducting 35% thereof as the corresponding expenditure; resulting in the impugned addition of Rs.41,29,190/- as well as interest of Rs.1,76,082/- received from fixed deposits with M/s. Baramati Sahakari Bank Ltd.; respectively. That being the case, there is no addition made regarding the foregoing sole reason of reopening. Faced with this situation, I quote CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., [2011] 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) that the impugned reopening/re-assessment itself is not sustainable in law once the learned Assessing Officer had not added the foregoing sum of Rs.25,01,100/- (supra). Ordered accordingly. All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10.05.2024. Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 10 th May, 2024 VBP/- 3 ITA.No.5/PUN./2024 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.