Ashok Vishnu Wagh, Nashik V. ITO, Ward1(4), Nashik

ITA 840/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0577 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144; 250; 69A

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.840/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ashok Vishnu Wagh, 1, Ambe Dindori, Dindori, Nashik-422202 PAN : ABCPW4400H Vs. ITO, Ward – 1(4), Nashik अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Naimish Dixit Department by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 29-07-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31-07-2024 आदेश / ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061237046(1), dated 21.02.2024, involving proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case filed perused. 2. It emerges at the outset that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the lower authorities action making section 69A unexplained money addition of Rs.59,92,500/- in the course of section 144 assessment dated 07.12.2018; as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. It transpires during the course of hearing that although the Assessing Officer had framed assessment/reassessment dated 07.12.2018 “ex-parte”; the fact remains that the assessee had filed his additional 2 ITA No.840/PUN/2024, A.Y. 2011-12 evidence comprising of various details in the course of lower appellate proceedings. The same admittedly stands declined as per the CIT(A)/NFAC’s order under challenged. The Learned DR would hardly rebut the clinching fact that the assessee’s additional evidence placed before the first time before the CIT(A)/NFAC indeed goes to the root of the matter since he seeks to explain the source of impugned unexplained money addition in his hands. 4. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance raised here back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for afresh appropriate adjudication subject to a rider that it shall be taxpayer’s risk and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts within three effective opportunities in consequential proceedings. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 31 st July, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) (Satbeer Singh Godara) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 31 st July, 2024. रदि आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “ए” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. //सत्य दपि प्रदि// True Copy// आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, िररष्ठ दनजी सदचि / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune