JAYASHRI MAHAVIR LOKHANDE,PANVEL V. ITO WARD 1, PANVEL

ITA 1586/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jayashri Mahavir Lokhande, the appellant, contesting an order by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panvel, which treated an investment in property amounting to Rs. 34,15,000 as unexplained under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The reassessment was initiated under section 148 based on information regarding the purchase of immovable property. The appellant argued that the reopening of the assessment was done mechanically without proper application of mind and that they were not given sufficient time to respond due to the COVID-19 pandemic and technical issues with the e-filing portal. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not provide adequate time for the appellant to file objections and did not adhere to the procedural requirements for reopening the assessment as stipulated by the Supreme Court in G.K.N. Driveshafts case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712462 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: G.K.N. Driveshaft vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP P SATHE
• Assessee Lawyers: SARANG GUDHATE
• Keywords: Set aside; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained investment
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1586/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Jayashri Mahavir Lokhande, Room No.01 6/A, Building No.6, Khandeshwar Apartment as Sector 1, Navi Mumbai, Khanda Colony, Panvel – 410206. Maharashtra. V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panvel. PAN: ACWPL8291N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Sarang Gudhate – AR Revenue by Shri Sandeep P Sathe –JCIT(DR) Date of hearing 17/07/2025 Date of pronouncement 29/07/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2013-14 dated 03.06.2025, emanating from order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1586/PUN/2025 [A] 2 Tax Act, 1961, dated 26.09.2021. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in treating investment in property amounting to Rs. 34,15,000/- as Unexplained Investment u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, reopening is done mechanically without Application of Mind. Accordingly, reassessment proceedings need to be set aside including subsequent assessment order and consequential proceedings. 3. The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. The ld.AR for the Assessee filed a paper book. Ld.AR submitted that Assessing Officer has not given sufficient time to file reply. Ld.AR invited our attention to page no.3 of the assessment order, wherein, Assessing Officer has reproduced assessee’s submission dated 21.09.2021 requesting for further time. Ld.AR also submitted that the Assessing Officer should have given the reasons once assessee had filed the Return of Income in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. However, Assessing Officer gave reasons on 22.09.2021 and assessment order was passed on 26.09.2021 without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee to file Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1586/PUN/2025 [A] 3 objections. Ld.AR further submitted that one more opportunity may be provided. Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A). Findings and Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, notice u/s.148 was issued on 23.03.2020 for A.Y.2013-14 based on the information regarding purchase of immovable property. The Assessee filed Return of Income in response to notice u/s.148 on 31.03.2021. The Assessee had requested the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 21.09.2021 to grant further time as due to Covid-19 Pandemic, Assessee was unable to collect the documents. In the letter dated 21.09.2021 Assessee also submitted that due to technical glitches on the e-filing portal, Assessee was unable to upload the documents. All these facts are recorded by the Assessing Officer in page no.3 of the assessment order. However, Assessing Officer without considering the request of the assessee passed the assessment order on 26.09.2021. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1586/PUN/2025 [A] 4 4.1 It is also observed that Assessing Officer had provided reasons for reopening vide letter dated 22.09.2021. As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s direction in the case of G.K.N. Driveshaft 259 ITR 90, the reasons for reopening needs to be provided as soon as Assessee files Return of Income in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. In this case, Return of Income was filed on 31.03.2021 whereas, reasons for reopening were provided on 22.09.2021 i.e. after a gap of six months. Therefore, it is apparent that Assessing Officer has not granted sufficient time to the Assessee to file objections. 5. In this case, the Assessee had raised all these grounds before ld.CIT(A). However, ld.CIT(A) has merely dismissed the appeal of the assessee without discussing the Legal Grounds raised by the Assessee. 5.1 In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set-aside the order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1586/PUN/2025 [A] 5 documents before the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29 July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- VINAY BHAMORE Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 29 July, 2025/ SGR आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “एस एम सी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "