AVINASH RAJENDRAKUMAR GHOLAP, PUNE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(5), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 753/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6746 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.Y. BALAWADE
• Section: 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.753/PUN/2024 नधा रण वष Assessment Year : 2017-18 Avinash Rajendrakumar Gholap, A/P. Gholapwadi, Uddhat, Taluka Indapur, Pune - 413103 Maharashtra PAN : ABJPG2776M Vs. ITO, Ward-14(5), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 21.02.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and no regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) was filed for the A.Y. 2017-18. Based on the receipt of information that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs.28,10,150/- during demonetization period in the bank account maintained with Axis Bank and Union Bank of India, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice u/s.142(1) calling upon the appellant to file the return of income. However, the appellant Assessee by : Shri Sarang Gudhate Revenue by : Shri R.Y. Balawade Date of hearing : 31.05.2024 Date of pronouncement : 31.05.2024 ITA No.753/PUN/2024 2 filed the belated return on 16.11.2019 declaring income of Rs.8,69,440/-. While doing so, the AO made addition of cash deposit of Rs.21,52,000/- for the failure of the appellant to explain the source of the cash deposits. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal ex parte. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. We heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the relevant material on record. On mere perusal of the contents of Para 3 of the impugned order, it would be clear that although the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC had afforded several opportunities to the appellant but it is evident that on no occasion, reasonable opportunity to respond to the hearing notices was given. Thus, the CIT(A)/NFAC had not given reasonable time to represent the matter offending the principles of natural justice. In the circumstances, we remand the matter to the CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo disposal of the appeal in accordance with law affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on this 31 st day of May, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दनांक / Dated : 31 st May, 2024 Satish ITA No.753/PUN/2024 3 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