JITENDRA NANASAHEB THORAT,NASHIK V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), NASHIK

ITA 2308/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jitendra Nanasaheb Thorat, the appellant, who contested the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC regarding the assessment year 2012-13. The primary issues revolved around the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution without a detailed adjudication, and procedural lapses in the issuance and compliance of notices under sections 250 and 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted similarities with a previous case involving the same assessee for a different assessment year and decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837330 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Premkumar Arjundas Luthra [(2017) 297 CTR 614], GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2002] 125 Taxman 963, Tia Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 5]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.Y. BALAWADE
• Assessee Lawyers: CHINMAYY PATHAK VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 147; 148; 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2308/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jitendra Nanasaheb Thorat, 7, Chaitra Palvi Apartment, Ashoka Marg, Behind Vijay Mamta, Kalpataru Nagar, Nashik, Dwarka Corner S.O., Nashik- 422006. PAN : AFYPT8886Q Vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Nashik. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was Assessee by : Shri Chinmayy Pathak (Virtual) Revenue by : Shri R. Y. Balawade Date of hearing : 29.01.2026 Date of pronouncement : 19.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2308/PUN/2025 2 prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1] The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine for non-prosecution of appeal without passing a speaking order adjudicating the grounds of appeal and detailed contentions advanced vide Statement of Facts uploaded electronically at the time of filing appeal, without appreciating that the said action of the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in Premkumar Arjundas Luthra [(2017) 297 CTR 614]. 2] Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 above, the assessee submits that the notices of hearing u/s 250 issued by the CIT(A) were served on email id of the appellant and not by post, whereas the appellant had specifically chosen “No” for the option of receiving notices/ communications over email as the appellant was not acquainted with using emails and therefore, there was a reasonable cause due to which the notices issued by the CIT(A) could not be complied by the appellant and hence, it is prayed that the matter may please be set aside to the file of the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. 3] Without prejudice to the above grounds, the appellant submits that the learned A.O. failed to issue notice u/s 143(2) in response to the return filed by the appellant u/s 148 and therefore, the re- asst. order u/s 147 proceedings may be declared as bad in law being with jurisdiction. 4] Without prejudice to the above grounds, the appellant submits that the learned A.O. has failed to supply the copy of reasons recorded for reopening the asst. of the appellant u/s 147 as contemplated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2002] 125 Taxman 963 and therefore, the entire re-asst. proceedings may be declared as void – ab – initio. 5] Without prejudice to the above grounds, the appellant submits that the application sent by the A.O. to the higher authority for obtaining approval u/s 151 and the approval u/s 151 obtained from the Higher Authority u/s 151 has not been confronted to the appellant along with the Notice u/s 148 and hence, the notice u/s Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2308/PUN/2025 3 148 may be declared as null and void in view of CBDT instructions F.No.299/10/2022-Dir(lnv.III)/611 Dated: 01.08.2022 as well as the law laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Tia Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 5], with the SLP in this case being dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of Rs.49,16,250 made by the A.O. by holding that the entire cash deposits made in bank accounts of the appellant are to be treated as unexplained cash credits without appreciating that the said cash deposits represented agricultural income of the appellant and is therefore, apparently unjustified on facts of the case and in law. 7] The learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of Rs.10,00,000 made by the A.O. by holding that the Fixed Deposit made with bank of the appellant is to be treated as unexplained cash credit without appreciating that the said fixed deposit was sourced out of agricultural income of the appellant and is therefore, apparently unjustified on facts of the case and in law. 8] The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the addition of Rs.93,825 made by the A.O. was, in fact, interest received on Fixed Deposits made by the appellant and was duly disclosed in the return filed u/s 148 which tantamount to double taxation of same income and therefore, the said addition deserves to be deleted. 9] The appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and on the basis of information that the cash of Rs.32,83,750/- in HDFC Bank, Mumbai and Rs.16,32,500/- in State Bank of India, Mumbai has been deposited by the assessee and a time deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- were made in HDFC Bank Limited and also received FD interest of Rs.93,825/-, the case of the assessee was Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2308/PUN/2025 4 reopened and a notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee furnished return in compliance to above notice by declaring an income of Rs.9,20,840/-. However, the assessee did not comply with any of the subsequent notices, therefore the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the IT Act by determining total income at Rs.69,30,915/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.9,20,840/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.59,16,250/- u/s 68 of the IT Act as unexplained cash deposits and Rs.93,825/- FDR interest income. 5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of assessee itself for assessment year Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2308/PUN/2025 5 2011-12 in ITA No.2307/PUN/2025 order dated 30.01.2026 has decided the identical issue and remanded the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for deciding the issue afresh by observing as under :- “9. In view of the above, in the interest of justice, we set-aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.” 8. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself for assessment year 2011-12 (supra), we deem it appropriate to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file with direction to decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to produce relevant documents/submissions/evidences, if any, in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC 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.2308/PUN/2025 6 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 19th day of February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 19th February, 2026. Sujeet 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 "