K D CHOUDHARI,PUNE V. DCIT CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 328/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves K. D. Choudhari, a partnership firm engaged in the business of commission agent dealing in agricultural produce, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2022-23. The primary contention was that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the detailed submissions made by the assessee, erroneously stating that no responses were received. The assessee had faced significant additions to their income under sections 68 and 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, which they contested. The Tribunal acknowledged the procedural oversight by the CIT(A) and remanded the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773951 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMOL KHAIRNAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD SHINGTE
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Principle of natural justice; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 68; 40(a)(ia)

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.328/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2022-23 K. D. Choudhari, Office No.36, 37, 38, Krushi Udog Bhavan, Gultekdi, Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Market Yard, Pune- 411037. PAN : AANFK0084B Vs. DCIT, Circle-5, Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2022-23. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, lower authorities erred in passing an order u/s 250 dated 19/12/2024, by observing that appellant has not responded to notices issued in appellate proceedings, thereby completely ignoring the detailed submissions made in response to last three notices, that to on or before due date mentioned, such casual approach in the appellate proceeding is unacceptable because, Ld. CIT(A) ought Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by : Shri Amol Khairnar Date of hearing : 05.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 08.09.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.328/PUN/2025 2 to have considered these detailed replies and should have decided the appeal on merit. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, following grounds are also taken on merit, 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned assessing officer erred in making an addition of Rs.3,58,38,285 under section 68 cash credit being entire unsecured loan accepted during the year by disregarding explanation and information submitted by the appellant the action of Learned Assessing Officer is illegal and arbitrary the entire addition deserves to be deleted 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.2,50,69,673/- under section 68 cash credit being entire outstanding balance of sundry creditors without making any further verification entire additions needs to be deleted. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.15,41,756 under section 40(a)(ia) by considering that under salary head TDS in respect of Rs 51,39.188 is not deducted. Your appellant claims that the action is incorrect and no disallowance is warranted. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.2,00,370 out of total interest expenses of Rs. 1,29,39,505 for the reason of want of details. It is your appellants claim that such details are available and entire allowance needs to be deleted. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant craves for to add, alter amend, modify, delete any or all grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing in the interest of natural justice.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of commission agent dealing in agricultural produce. The assessee has filed return of income on 30.09.2022 declaring total income of Rs.1,34,92,380/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and after considering the submissions of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.328/PUN/2025 3 the assessee the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, by determining taxable income of Rs.7,61,42,464/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.1,34,92,380/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.3,58,38,285/- and of Rs.2,50,69,673/- u/s 68 of the IT Act and addition of Rs.15,41,756/- on account of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act and also addition of Rs.2,00,370/- on account of disallowance of interest expenses. 4. The assessee preferred an appeal against the above assessment order. According to Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee only asked for adjournment on two occasions and no documents/ evidence were filed by the assessee, accordingly the appeal was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and the additions made by the Assessing Officer were confirmed. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before the bench that the assessee duly responded to notices of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and also furnished Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.328/PUN/2025 4 detailed submissions in support of appeal. However, due to reasons best known to Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC the above said submissions were not taken into consideration and the appeal was decided by treating as if the assessee had not filed any reply. Ld. AR filed copy of various submissions furnished online before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and the online acknowledgement of above said submissions were also produced before the bench. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and delete the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 7. Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. 8. 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 Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has decided the appeal after discussing the merits of the case, however at the same time we also find that various submissions filed by the assessee were not taken into consideration by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. In this regard, we further find that the assessee has filed written submissions on 28.08.2024 containing 29 documents in 3 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.328/PUN/2025 5 instalments and in this regard copy of 3 online acknowledgements are also filed before the bench. The assessee again filed online reply on 01.10.2024 before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC wherein total of 32 documents were filed in 4 instalments since all those documents could not be attached in one go. A perusal of all these online reply furnished by the assessee proves that the assessee has duly responded to the notices of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and also furnished online written submissions along with supporting documents before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, however the above said submission remained to be considered by Ld. CIT(A)NFAC. Accordingly, we find force in the arguments of Ld. counsel of the assessee that the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is not correct. 9. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to his file with a 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.328/PUN/2025 6 and to file reply submission documents evidences or additional evidences in support of grounds of appeal in addition to reply/documents/evidences already filed before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and rest of the grounds raised by the assessee are not adjudicated since they relates to merits of the case which has already been remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) )/NFAC for fresh decision. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 08th day of September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 08th September, 2025. 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 // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "