KANCHAN CHANDAR WADHWANI,PUNE V. ITO WARD 8(3), PUNE

ITA 612/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Kanchan Chandar Wadhwani, the appellant, who contested the order passed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Pune, under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary issues raised in the appeal included the treatment of certain amounts as unexplained investments and income from business or profession, which the appellant argued were misclassified or incorrectly assessed. The appellant did not appear for the hearings, and the assessments were made based on the available records and previous submissions. The Tribunal noted the absence of documentary evidence from the assessee and decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination and a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 298628 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH
• Keywords: Business income; Reasonable cause; Unexplained investment
• Section: 144; 69; 44AD

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \"एस एम सी\" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"SMC\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.612/PUN/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Kanchan Chandar Wadhwani, 123, Pune, Pune H.O. Haveli, Pune-411001 Maharashtra PAN-ADJPW1580B Vs ITO, Ward 8(3), Pune Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava, Additional CIT Date of hearing : 23.04.2025 Date of pronouncement : 25.04.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 17.12.2019 passed by ITO, Pune u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) and Ld. Assessing Officer [ITO Ward 8(4)] has erred in law and in facts in treating amount of Rs. 14,96,500/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the 1.T Act without taking into consideration the fact that appellant has already given clarification regarding the cash deposits made for the period under consideration with detailed evidence. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) and Ld. Assessing Officer [ITO Ward 8(4)] has erred in law and in facts in treating the amount of Rs. 627,300/- as Income from business or Profession. The Assessee had opted for presumptive mode of taxation u/s 44AD of the Act and declared 2 ITA No.612/PUN/2025 business income @ 9% but the Ld. AO without considering the Income Tax Return had considered business income @15%. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) and Ld. Assessing Officer [ITO Ward 8(4)) has erred in law and in facts by making addition of all credits in the Bank Statement without considering the factual position of the same. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) and Ld. Assessing Officer [ITO Ward 8(4)] has erred in law and in facts in Completing the Assessment Proceedings without considering the Income Tax Return filed by the Assessee against the Notices issued. 5. The appellant craves leave to add / alter / amend / modify / delete all / any grounds of appeal. 3. When the case was called for none appeared on behalf of the assessee even though valid notice of hearing was issued to the assessee. With the assistance of Ld. DR., we on perusal of record find that the impugned order is ex-parte as the assessee failed to appear on the dates of hearing and could not submit any documentary evidence. 4. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the record placed before us. The assessee who is an individual did not file return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 but on account of cash deposit during demonetization period assessment proceedings were carried out after valid issuance of statutory notice. The assessee failed to make proper submissions. Ld. AO concluded the assessment making addition of Rs. 21,23,800/- The assessee challenged the additions before Ld. CIT(A). After filing of the appeal, assessee failed to appear on dates of hearing given by Ld. CIT(A) on various occasions . Ld. CIT(A) passed the order on merits based on file records. We however notice that finding of Ld. CIT(A) is only based on the assessment order but clearly there was no documentary evidence filed by the assessee. 5. We therefore in the larger interest of justice, deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) and 3 ITA No.612/PUN/2025 afford one more opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Ld. CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity to assessee and pass a speaking order in accordance to law. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 25th day of April, 2025. Sd- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; दििांक / Dated: 25th April, 2025. Neeta आिेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. धवभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, \"SMC\" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, \"SMC\" Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ा फाइल / Guard File. आिेशािुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "