KULDIP RAMESH BAAGWE,PUNE V. .ITO, WARD 6(3), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1113/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Kuldip Ramesh Baagwe, the appellant, who contested the order of the CIT(A) regarding the assessment year 2010-2011. The appellant had made substantial cash deposits and purchases without filing a return of income, leading to an assessment under sections 147 and 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution, as the appellant did not appear for hearings, which were sent to an outdated email address of his former tax consultant. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered the merits of the case and had not adhered to the legislative mandate of providing a speaking order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 36187 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2024
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. BN Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC), CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd 381 ITD 320 (Delhi), Vipul Logistic & Warehousing (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: SANKET M JOSHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Reason to believe; Non compliance
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 250; 68; 69

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \"A\" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"A\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1113/PUN/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Kuldip Ramesh Baagwe, 592 Kasewadi, Bhavani Peth, Pune-411042, Maharashtra PAN-AIVPB7422J Vs ITO, Ward 6(3), Pune Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Sanket M Joshi Department by Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing 30/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement 12/12/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.05.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“CIT(A)”] pertaining to the (“AY”) 2010-2011. 2. The appeal is time barred by 307 days before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of appeal alongwith an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to the delay in filing the appeal. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the delay is attributable to the sufficient cause. We therefore, condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that from the NMS-1/2 cycle it was found that during the relevant AY 2010-2011 the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs. 1,86,85,000/- in Bank of India, Pune and purchased a four wheeler for Rs. 7,24,000/-. Since the assessee had not filed Return of Income for the relevant AY, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) had reason to believe that the income of the ITA No.1113/PUN/2024 2 assessee escaped assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued/served upon the assessee on 31.03.2017. The assessment proceedings culminated in framing of assessment for AY 2016-2017 on income of Rs. 1,01,57,457/- including therein addition of Rs. 94,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act and addition of Rs. 7,24,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The assessment order for AY 2010-2011 was passed on 27.12.2017 u/s 144 r.w. section 147 of the Act. 4. The assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC challenging the aforesaid additions made by the Ld. A O. Due to non- compliance of notice(s) of hearing by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non prosecution and endorsed the finding of the Ld. A O by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. BN Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and decision(s) of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd 381 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Vipul Logistic & Warehousing (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO. 5. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for non appearance of the assessee during the appellate proceedings and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. We have heard the Ld. representatives of the parties and perused the record. It is submitted by the Ld. AR that the non compliance before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has occured due to the reason that the notice of hearing were issued on e-mail address [e-mail] which belonged to the assessee’s erstwhile Tax Consultant. The said e-mail address was different from the e-mail Id mentioned in Form 35 at the time of filling appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC i.e. [e-mail] and neither the appellate order nor the notice of hearings were received on this email mentioned in Form 35. The erstwhile Tax Consultant did not intimate the assessee about receipt of notices of hearing or the receipt of appellate order on his email Id. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not adjudicated on the merits of the case and the issues raised by the assessee before him. The appellant order reveals that the Ld. CIT(A) has applied the decision in the case of BN Bhattacharya (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue of prosecution of appeal has observed that:- ITA No.1113/PUN/2024 3 “Preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it” The Ld. CIT(A) has further relied on the decision(s) of the Delhi Tribunal in Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd.’s case and Vipul Logistic & Warehousing (P) Ltd.’s case (supra) to support his action. 7. No doubt the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC may decide the appeal ex-parte where the assessee does not prosecute his appeal inspite of several opportunities. None-the- less, he has to adhere to the legislative mandate enshrined in sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act which requires him to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has passed the order in concurrence of the order of Ld. AO without himself going into the merits of the case. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice and fair play, to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication afresh and pass speaking order on merits after allowing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee who shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant documents / evidence as may be required/called upon. We order accordingly. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th December, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. PANDA) (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे/Pune; ददिांक /Dated : 12th December, 2024 आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधषि/ Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी /Appellant ITA No.1113/PUN/2024 4 2. प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent 3. The CIT (Exemption), Pune. 4. धवभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “A” बेंच, पुणे/DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ा फाइल/Guard File आदेशािुसार/BY ORDER //True Copy// पुणे/Pune Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune "