JYOTIBA MURLIDHAR DAPKE,AURANGABAD V. ITO WARD 1(4), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

ITA 103/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Jyotiba Murlidhar Dapke, the appellant, who contested a penalty of Rs.1,91,470 levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The penalty was based on the grounds that certain cash deposits in the appellant's bank account were income that had escaped assessment. The appellant argued that these deposits were receipts from the sale of agricultural produce, not taxable income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty, leading to the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and consideration of all evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716985 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 14-01-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC), Inder Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 339
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMESH N THETE VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” Ɋायपीठ पुणे मŐ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.103/PUN/2025 Assessment Year 2011-12 Jyotiba Murlidhar Dapke, Bahirgaon, Kannad, Aurangabad – 431103. PAN: BAYPD8679K Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(4), Aurangabad. अपीलाथŎ / Appellant ŮȑथŎ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ramesh N Thete–AR(Virtual) Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - DR Date of hearing : 10-06-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20-08-2025 आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.11.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs.1,91,470/- levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2011-12. 2. The appeal has been filed with a delay of 349 days. An application for condonation of delay has been moved accompanied with an affidavit sworn by the assessee citing the reasons therein for the said delay. After hearing the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perusing the contents of the affidavit, we are of the view that there was a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the stipulated time. The delay is hereby condoned in light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) and recent case of Inder Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 339. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.103/PUN/2025 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Considering the facts of the case and the law, the Ld. Assessing Officer is not justified to uphold the penalty imposed under section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by treating the cash deposits as income escaped in the hands of the Assessee, as the said cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee were receipts from sales of agricultural produce/activities of the assessee. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not considered the evidences submitted by the Appellant, citing the provisions of Rule 46A and dismissed the Appeal without considering the merits of the appeal before his office. The Ld. Commissioner Appeal has not dwelled into the merits of the Appellants case, by denying the evidences submitted before his office, referring the provisions of rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, which is not justified by considering the education and acumen of the appellant to under the income tax proceedings and the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant is living in a small village and working as farmer i.e. cultivating his inherited agricultural lands. The action of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal is not justified, as the Appellant has had reasons beyond his controls to produce the evidences before the Ld. Assessing Officer. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal has passed the order against the very spirit of law, without paying any consideration to the fact on record and upheld the PENALTY under section 271 (1) (C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 solely on technical considerations. 2. The assessee craves to add, delete, alter, modify, withdraw any of the grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 4. Vide our order of even date we have set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC on quantum issues involved and restored the matter to the file of the Ld. AO to be decided afresh on merits. We, therefore, set aside the impugned penalty order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for decision afresh in accordance with law after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. We order accordingly. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th August, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. Panda) (Astha Chandra) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; िदनांक / Dated : 20th August, 2025./SGR* Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.103/PUN/2025 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant. 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” बŐच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडŊ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, / / True Copy / / वįरʿ िनजी सिचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com "