MAYUR BALASAHEB SHINDE,PUNE V. ITO WARD 2(1), PUNE

ITA 1504/PUN/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mayur Balasaheb Shinde against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which was dated 31.10.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issues in the appeal included the incorrect classification of cash deposits as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE, and the misclassification of agricultural income as income from other sources. The assessee argued that the additions made were resulting in double taxation as the same income was already considered in the net profit and gross total income. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-compliance without addressing the merits of the case, leading to the current appeal before the ITAT.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472109 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 13-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH L PATHADE
• Assessee Lawyers: SARANG GUDHATE
• Section: 250; 69A

Judgement Text

" ।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1504/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mayur Balasaheb Shinde, 1, Anil Apartment, Baner Residency, Baner Road, Near Sakal Nagar, Aunch, Ganeshkind, Pune – 411007. PAN: DRBPS7371R V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Pune. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Sarang Gudhate – AR Revenue by Shri Prakash L Pathade – DR Date of hearing 13/11/2024 Date of pronouncement 18/11/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated 31.10.2023 for A.Y.2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld Assessing officer is erred in considering the cash deposited of ITA No.1504/PUN/2024 2 Rs.10,46,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld Assessing officer is erred in treating agricultural income of Rs.13,63,625/- as Income from other sources. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld. Assessing officer is erred in making an addition on account of cash deposited whereas same is already considered in Net profit and in gross total income. This addition is resulting as a double taxation. 4. The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, revise, substitute, delete or alter any/all of the above grounds of appeal if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Submission of ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) : 2. Ld.AR submitted that there was delay in filing appeal before the ITAT. Ld.AR filed copy of affidavit of the assessee which explains the reasons for delay. 2.1 The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) without discussing each and every ground and merits of the case and merely dismissed for non-compliance. Ld.AR submitted that assessee’s earlier practitioner had mentioned his Email Id, therefore, assessee was not aware about the proceedings. Therefore, assessee could not reply as assessee has not received ITA No.1504/PUN/2024 3 any notice. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC]. Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. There is delay of 199 days in filing appeal before the ITAT. We have perused the affidavit of the assessee. We are of the opinion that there was sufficient reason for delay. Therefore, in the interest of the justice, we condone the Delay in filing appeal before the ITAT. 4.1 It is observed from the order of the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] that the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] did not decide the grounds of appeal on merit but merely upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer as assessee has not filed any reply before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits. It is observed that there was valid reason for non- compliance by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, in the ITA No.1504/PUN/2024 4 interest of justice, we set-aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18th November, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 18th Nov, 2024/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “एस एम सी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "