M/S SHITAL JEWELLERS,TEMBHURNI V. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

ITA 1055/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Shital Jewellers, a partnership firm, which faced a survey under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, leading to the declaration of additional income due to excess cash and stock. The Assessing Officer taxed this additional income under sections 69A and 69B read with section 115BBE of the Act. The appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-compliance by the assessee, despite multiple opportunities given. The ITAT found procedural discrepancies in the Ld. CIT(A)'s handling of the appeal and restored the case for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716987 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: PIYUSH BAFNA
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Deemed to accrue or arise in india
• Section: 143(3); 133A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1055/PUN/2025 Assessment year : 2016-17 M/s Shital Jewellers Main Road, Tembhurni, Ghoti B.O., Sangam, Solapur – 413211 Vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Solapur PAN: ACOFS3600C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Piyush Bafna Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 18-08-2025 Date of pronouncement : 20-08-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 29.03.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A), Delhi-31 relating to assessment year 2016-17. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution and thereby upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer wherein the Assessing Officer has taxed the declaration made during the course of survey on account of unexplained cash and explained stock u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.1055/PUN/2025 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm and filed its return of income on 17.10.2016 declaring total income of Rs.43,27,270/-. A survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out in the case of the assessee on 12.02.2016 and 13.02.2016 during which the assessee declared additional income of Rs.94,99,186/- on account of excess cash of Rs.5,01,307/-, excess stock of gold of Rs.41,99,100/- and excess stock of silver of Rs.47,98,779/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee in response to which the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 17.12.2018 wherein he treated the additional income declared on account of excess cash of Rs.5,01,307/- as unexplained and assessed the same as deemed income u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Similarly the declaration of additional income on account of excess stock of silver and gold amounting to Rs.94,99,186/- was also treated by him as investment not fully recorded in the books of account and brought to tax the same u/s 69B r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. Since, the assessee did not respond to the statutory notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) on various occasions, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A), following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC) dismissed the appeal filed by the assesse for want of prosecution. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.1055/PUN/2025 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that although the assessee has not participated in the appeal proceedings, however, the statement of facts were filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and he should have decided the appeal by treating the amounts declared during the course of survey as normal business income instead of upholding the treatment given by the Assessing Officer by bringing to tax u/s 115BBE of the Act. Further he has mentioned in his order that “However, since the appellant has filed written submissions they are being dealt with on merit in subsequent paragraphs”. Referring to the order of Ld. CIT(A) he submitted that there are no such paragraphs in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Relying on various decision, he submitted that since the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance with law, therefore, the same should be set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee should be allowed. 7. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that since there was non- compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted by him, therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld. In his alternate argument, he submitted that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that despite number of opportunities granted by the Ld. CIT(A), there was non-compliance from the side of the assessee for Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.1055/PUN/2025 which he dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. We further find that despite non-filing of the written submissions by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) has mentioned that “However, since the appellant has filed written submissions they are being dealt with on merit in subsequent paragraphs”. However, a perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) shows that there are no such paragraphs written by the Ld. CIT(A) in subsequent paragraphs. 9. We find the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act which read as under: “250(1). … (6) The order of the [Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the] Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.” 10. However, a perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC shows that he has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution but has not decided the appeal as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Since it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to grant an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case by filing the requisite details and decide the appeal on merit by passing a speaking order as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) on the appointed date and make its submissions, if any, without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. CIT(A) Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.1055/PUN/2025 shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 20th August, 2025 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.1055/PUN/2025 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 18.08.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 19.08.2025 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "