JAYA,PUNE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(3), PUNE

ITA 2461/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Smt. Jaya, against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, which dismissed her appeal due to a delay of 309 days without considering the merits of the case. The original assessment was made under sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, where the Assessing Officer added Rs. 1,03,32,100 as unexplained income under section 69A, based on substantial cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, despite no income tax return being filed. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal on procedural grounds without merit consideration was not justified and remanded the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841886 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONAL L. SONKAVDE
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ; JAYA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Business income
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2461/PUN/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Jaya, A-3 Building, Flat No.307, Rakshak Nagar Gold, Kharadi, Pune- 411014. PAN : BDPPJ3287F Vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. There is delay of 57 days in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for Assessee by : Shri Pankaj & Smt. Jaya Revenue by : Smt. Sonal L. Sonkavde Date of hearing : 02.02.2026 Date of pronouncement : 25.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2461/PUN/2025 2 condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay of 57 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other- On facts and in law, 1] The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant on the ground that there was delay of 309 days in filling the appeal without looking the merits of the case. 1.1] The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) failed to appreciate the genuineness of the case that the appellant's business was shut down and that she has permanently shifted to Pune due to which she was unaware of about the issue of all the notices and orders in this case. 2] The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) has erred in confirming the huge and arbitrary additions made by the AO in the hands of the appellant amounting to Rs. 1,03,32,100/- by passing an ex- parte assessment order u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act which is patently illegal and unsustainable in law and the same may please be deleted. 3] The Ld. NFAC/AO erred in invoking S. 69A of the Act which is not at all applicable in the present case, as it was not a case where appellant is found to be in possession of any unaccounted money, bullion, jewellery etc. It was rather a case of sources and taxability of cash deposits in bank account. Thus, entire addition made is void & illegal. 4] The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,03,32,100/- treating entire cash deposit amount during the year under consideration as unexplained income of the appellant without considering the facts of the case. 4.1] The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that entire cash deposits were sourced out of sale proceeds from business of supply of food products and accordingly, only net profit from business can be brought to tax and not entire cash deposits/business receipts. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2461/PUN/2025 3 4.2] The Ld. NFAC/CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant was engaged into competitive business of supply of perishable goods which is very thin margin business and that after taking into account all the expenses incurred, the appellant had hardly earned any profit. The addition made, therefore, deserves to be deleted entirely. 4.3] Without prejudice, the Ld. NFAC/AO ought to have restricted addition to the extent of estimated profit @ 2-3% of the receipts as per industry norms considering the nature of business. 5] Without prejudice to contention that there is no profit, the Ld. NFAC/AO ought to have taxed the income/profit if any from business receipts under the head Profit & Gains from Business & Profession and not as unexplained income u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 6] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not furnished her return of income for the year under consideration. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act on the basis of information available on insight portal of the Department that an amount of Rs.1,03,32,100/- were deposited in her banks account although return of income has not been filed. The statutory notices u/s 148, 142(1), 144 and show cause notices were issued to the assessee. Assessee did not comply with any of the above notices, therefore the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act and vide assessment order dated 15.02.2024 determined total income at Rs.1,03,32,100/- as against no return Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2461/PUN/2025 4 filed by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.1,03,32,100/- u/s 69A of the IT Act being un explained money. 5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the appeal was filed belatedly i.e. with the delay of 309 days, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed it without going into merits of the case. 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard the assessee who appeared in person before the Bench and Ld. DR from the side of the Revenue, and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 309 days without going into merits of the case. In this regard, it was the contention of the assessee that for the first time she started the business and suffered heavy losses, therefore the business was closed down by her and since she was unaware with any of the tax related knowledge the assessment order was passed ex-parte in her absence. It was also contended before the Bench that all the receipts appearing in bank account pertains to business transactions. Subsequently, someone advised her to file an appeal Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2461/PUN/2025 5 against the ex-parte assessment order but in between the delay of 309 days occurred. She explained the above delay before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, however her contentions were not found satisfactory and therefore the appeal was not admitted for adjudication. It was the sole prayer of the assessee before the Bench that the matter be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer so that the assessee can substantiate her case before the Assessing Officer. 8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to pass assessment order afresh and as per fact & law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer in this regard and to produce relevant documents/evidences/submissions, if any, in support of her contentions without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2461/PUN/2025 6 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 25th day of February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 25th February, 2026. Sujeet/DOC आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "