M/S Hanumant Yashwant Pingale, Raigad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Panvel, Panvel

ITA 888/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Hanumant Yashwant Pingale, the appellant, who challenged the order passed by the NFAC, which was based on an ex-parte assessment by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Panvel. The ITO had made additions to the appellant's income for unexplained cash transactions and short-term capital gains due to non-response from the appellant to various notices. The NFAC also proceeded ex-parte after multiple non-responses from the appellant. The ITAT found that the NFAC's decision did not comply with the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which necessitates a speaking order after considering the merits of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136342 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2023
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs B. N. Bhattacharjee [1997] 118 ITR 461 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144; 142(1); 133(6); 250; 69A

Judgement Text

॥आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे “ए” न्यायपीठ, पुणे में॥ ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘A’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपऩल स ं . / ITA No. 888/PUN/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Hanumant Yashwant Pingale, Kandhroll Tarfe Boreti, Khalapur, Raigad - 410202, PAN: APCPP7457H . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-(4), Panvel . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee by : Mr Hari Krishan [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. DR’] स ु नवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 27/09/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 27/09/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; By the present appeal assessee has challenged the DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1053178154(1) dt. 25/05/2023 passed u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’] by National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short ‘NFAC’] which in turn ascended out of an order of assessment passed u/s 144 of the Act by Income Tax Officer, Ward-(4), Panvel [in short ‘AO’] for assessment year 2017-18 [in short ‘AY’]. Hanumant Yashwant Pingale ITA No.838/PUN/2023 AY: 2017-18 ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 3 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that; 2.1 The appellant individual assessee failed to file his return of Income for the year under consideration, in whose case information of cash deposit through AIR was received, pursuant to which the case of the assessee was picked for assessment by issue of notice dt. 10/03/2018 u/s 142(1) of the Act. When various notices issued during the assessment proceedings remained un- responded and summon dt. 21/09/2019 issued on the appellant remained un- attended; the Ld. AO proceeded ex-parte and obtained information from various bankers’ u/s 133(6) of the Act. In the event of appellant’s effective failure to represent and to adduce cogent evidences in support of cash deposits and other banking transactions etc., the Ld. AO culminated the assessment proceedings to the best of his judgement by making additions towards unexplained cash transactions of ₹86,98,795/- u/s 69A of the Act and ₹58,00,000/- towards STCG u/s 45 of the Act and determined the total income of the appellant at ₹1,44,98,800/- by an order framed u/s 144 of the Act. 2.2 Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before Ld. NFAC u/s 246A(1)(a) of the Act. During first appellate proceedings, the Ld. NFAC provided as much as four opportunities vide notice dt. 16/03/2021, 07/02/2023, 21/04/2023 & 09/05/2023 however same remained unresponded. In absence any response forthcoming from the assessee, Ld. NFAC referring findings of Ld. AO, has culminated its proceedings ex-parte placing reliance on Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in ‘CIT Vs B. N. Bhattacharjee reported in [1997] 118 ITR 461 (SC). Hanumant Yashwant Pingale ITA No.838/PUN/2023 AY: 2017-18 ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 3 2.3 Aggrieved by the aforestated ex-parte adjudication of Ld. FAA, the appellant assessee set-up this case alleging the violation of principle of natural justice in the former to merits thereof. 3. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material placed on record in light of rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 and note that, the Ld. NFAC in the absence of cogent evidential material and in the evince of restriction placed by 251(1)(a) of the Act, had to culminate the proceedings ex-parte. This adjudication culminated without touching the merits, however in our considered view is not in consonance with the provision of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act. For the reason, without commenting on merits of the case, we deem it fit to remand the matter back to the file of Ld. NFAC with a direction to deal therewith de-nova after according not more than three opportunities and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. 4. In result, the appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. u/r 34 of ITAT Rules, order pronounced in open court on this Wednesday, 27th day of September, 2023. -S/d- -S/d- S. S. GODARA G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER प ु णे/ PUNE; ददना ां क / Dated : 27 th day of September, 2023. आदेश की प्रनिनलनपअग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपीलाथी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune 4. The CIT(A), NFAC Delhi 5. DR, ITAT, Bench ‘A’, Pune 6.गार्डफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशान ु सार / By Order वररष्ठदनजीसदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकरअपीलीयन्यायादधकरण, प ु णे / ITAT, Pune.