MAHESH GOKULDAS FULWANI,AURANGABAD V. ITO WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

ITA 813/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mahesh Gokuldas Fulwani, the appellant, contesting an ex-parte order from the CIT(A)/NFAC which confirmed an addition of Rs 1,81,94,052 to the appellant's income for unexplained cash deposits. The appellant argued that the reopening of the assessment under section 148 was improper and should have been under section 153C, following a search at a third party's premises. The CIT(A)'s order was challenged for being passed without a detailed discussion on merits and for not adhering to the mandatory requirements of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772167 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: Vijaykumar Chordiya ITA 1075/PUN/2024, CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattachargee (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: GIRISH LADDA VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Non compliance
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए”न्यायपीठ पुणे में । 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.813/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Mahesh Gokuldas Fulwani, Mahesh Traders C o Girls Fashion 2 7 63, Tilak Path Paithan Gate, Aurangabad – 431001. PAN: AAJPF4456C Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad. अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Girish Ladda (Virtual) Department by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 17-07-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26-08-2025 आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 24.01.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) It may please be held that notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law since the Assessing Officer in the instant case has reopened the assessment on the basis of information that emerged at the time of search at the premises of third party M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multistate Credit Society Ltd., therefore, the proper course of action by the Assessing Officer should have been under the provisions of section 153C and not under the provisions of section 147 of the Act. Reliance is placed on PUNE ITAT Judgement dt 19/09/2024 in case of Vijaykumar Chordiya ITA 1075/PUN/2024. 2) On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT- Appeal, has erred in confirming and upholding the action of the AO making addition of Rs 1,81,94,052 for the entire amount of deposits/credits made in bank account with Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, hence it is prayed that impugned addition may please be deleted/appropriate relief in this regard may please be allowed. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.813/PUN/2025 3) Without prejudice to above ground, the CIT (A) erred in passing ex-parte appellate order giving the notices for hearing in short span of time. The CIT(A)'s order without dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without discussing merits of the case is against the mandatory requirements of section 250(6) providing that appellate order shall state the points for determination, decision thereon and reasons for its decision. Hence the orders of lower authorities may please be set aside and matter may please be restored back to JAO for fresh de novo adjudication as per the law. 4) The Appellate craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. 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)/NFAC in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”)under section 69A of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) in the order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s.144B of the Act. 4. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that there was non-compliance on the part of the assessee to the notices issued which led to the ex-parte order being passed by both the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC but the same was not intentional. The Ld. AR has submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details/ documents as desired by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to his satisfaction and hence has requested for setting aside the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC and submitted that the assessee was given adequate opportunities by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC but he still failed to comply and therefore the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was completely justified in passing the impugned ex-parte order for non-prosecution. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the case records. We find that the notices issued by the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC remained un- complied. We find that the Ld. AO completed the assessment ex-parte by making an addition under section 69A of the Act in respect of the cash deposits of Rs. 1,81,94,052/- made by the assessee in his account maintained with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Society Ld. during the relevant AY under consideration as the source of the said cash deposits remained unexplained by the assessee owing to the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.813/PUN/2025 assessee’s non compliance to the notice(s) issued by the Ld. AO. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC vide his impugned ex-parte order dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution and upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) without deciding the issues involved on merits observing that the assessee failed to furnish any cogent documentary evidence/ proof in support of its claim. The appellate order reveals that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has applied the decision(s) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattachargee (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and some other cases cited therein and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. No doubt, the Ld. CIT(A) may decide the appeal ex-parte where the assessee does not prosecute his appeal in spite of several opportunities. Nonetheless, 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 thereof and the reasons for the decision. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order in concurrence of the order of Ld. AO without himself deciding the issues on merits by passing a speaking order. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 7. On the above 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 Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file to adjudicate the matter afresh by passing a speaking order on merits as per fact and law after allowing one final opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant documents/evidence as may be required/called upon on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext unless required for a sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We direct and order accordingly. 8. In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. Panda) (Astha Chandra) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 26th August, 2025./SGR*/Ravi Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.813/PUN/2025 आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “ए” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. आिेश नुस र/ BY ORDER, / / True Copy // िररष्ठदनजीसदचि/ Sr. Private Secretary आयकरअपीलीयअदिकरण ,पुणे/ ITAT, Pune S. No Details Date Initi als Designati on 1 Draft dictated on 2 Final Draft placed before author 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on 7 Date of uploading of Order 8 File sent to Bench Clerk 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 "