ASHOK VITTHAL NACHANKAR, RATNAGIRI V. ITO, WARD-1, RATNAGIRI

ITA 602/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2101 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 13-05-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV K SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1); 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No.602/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ashok Vitthal Nachankar 386, Aviraj, Adarsha Nagar, Mirjole, Ratnagiri – 415639 Maharashtra Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ratnagiri PAN : AALPN4299F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department by : Shri Gaurav K Singh Date of hearing : 14-05-2024 Date of pronouncement : 29-05-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.03.2024 of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, relating to assessment year 2011-12. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a government servant, who filed his return of income on 11.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.2,34,350/-. Information was received from the Investigation Wing, Kolhapur that the assessee has purchased twin bungalows in Mirjole for Rs.7.50 lacs for which he made cash payments. Further, there were certain credit entries in his HDFC bank account. Therefore, the Assessing Officer, after recording reasons, reopened the assessment and notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued. However, there was no response to the notice issued u/s 148 of 2 ITA No.602/PUN/2024 the Act from the side of the assessee. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. However, there was also no compliance from the side of the assessee to the statutory notices for which the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act on 03.12.2018 and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.23,17,870/-, wherein he made addition of Rs.7,72,500/- being the cost of investment for purchase of bungalow including the registration charges and Rs.13,11,020/- being the unexplained credits in the bank accounts. 3. Before the CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee filed certain additional evidences. The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. However, despite reminders issued to the Assessing Officer on 02.01.2024 and 21.02.2024, there was no response from the side of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC proceeded to decide the appeal and granted part relief to the assessee. So far as the addition of unexplained investment is concerned, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustained an amount of Rs.6,72,500/- out of addition of Rs.7,72,500/-. Similarly, out of addition of Rs.13,11,020/- u/s 69A of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustained an amount of Rs.4,09,245/-. 4. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.6,72,500/- out of addition made by the AO Rs.7,72,500/- being investment in Property as unexplained, not accepting the explanation of the appellant in this respect. 3 ITA No.602/PUN/2024 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs.4,09,245/- out of addition made by the AO Rs.13,11,020/- being the credits in his bank accounts, not accepting the explanation of the appellant in this respect. 5. I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. I find the Assessing Officer in the instant case made addition of Rs.7,72,500/- u/s 69A of the Act being the amount invested for purchase of bungalows at Rs.7.5 lacs and registration expenses of Rs.22,500/-. Similarly, he made addition of Rs.13,11,020/- u/s 69A of the Act being the unexplained credit entries in the two bank accounts maintained with HDFC bank and ICICI bank. I find before the Ld CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee filed certain additional evidences, based on which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. However, despite two reminders issued to the Assessing Officer, there was no response from the side of the Assessing Officer for which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC proceeded to decide the appeal on the basis of the details available before him by observing as under: “3. Opportunity given by CIT(A):- Notices were issued to the appellant on 24.12.2018, 19.11.2019, 28.12.2020, 11.10.2023 and 20.10.2023 through the ITBA Portal. An enablement of communication email was also sent by NFAC on 01.11.2022. During the appeal proceedings, appellant submitted additional evidences, therefore a remand report was called from AO on 03.11.2023. Reminders was issued to the AO on 02.01.2024, 21.02.2024 and Issue letter was issued to range head. Since there is no reply from the AO, appeal is decided on merits.” 6. Since the assessee filed the various details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, based on which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer and since the Assessing Officer has not submitted the remand 4 ITA No.602/PUN/2024 report despite reminders, therefore, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to exercise his power by calling for the remand report from the Assessing Officer and decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 29 th day of May, 2024. Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) VICE PRESIDENT प ु णे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 29 th May, 2024 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune 5 ITA No.602/PUN/2024 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 28.05.2024 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 29.05.2024 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order