MOHSIN AHMAD ABDUL LATEEF,NASHIK V. ITO, WARD-1, MALEGAON

ITA 1926/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Moshin Ahmad Abdul Lateef, an individual engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Grey Fabrics, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2019-20. The appeal was directed against the assessment order which included unexplained cash deposits, withdrawals, and sales of a motor vehicle, leading to an addition of Rs. 53,59,477 to the assessee's income. The Tribunal noted the absence of specific discussion on merits by the CIT(A) and the non-submission of documentary evidence by the assessee during the reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal found it fair to restore the issues to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination and proper adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 708419 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P. MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD S. SHINGTE
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1926/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Moshin Ahmad Abdul Lateef, Anmol Fabtex, Sr.No.15, Near Fire Station, Durga Wadi, Malegaon, Malegaon City, S.O., Nashik – 423 203 Maharashtra PAN : ANFPA2272G Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Malegaon Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-10 is directed against the order dated 08.08.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 27.02.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for setting aside the impugned order and restore the issues raised to the file of lower authorities for necessary adjudication on merits. Ld. Departmental Representative raised no objection if the issues are restored to the file of ld.CIT(A). Appellant by : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Respondent by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 25.06.2025 Date of pronouncement : 14.07.2025 ITA No.1926/PUN/2024 Moshin Ahmad Abdul Lateef 2 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of Grey Fabrics. It is claimed that turnover of the assessee exceeds the threshold limit specified u/s.44AB of the Act and that the books of account are duly audited but the return of income not file due to financial crunch. On the basis of information about cash withdrawals/cash deposit/TCS statement of sale of motor vehicles case of the assessee selected for scrutiny u/s.147 of the Act. Valid statutory notices were duly served upon the assessee for carrying out re-assessment assessment proceedings. However, due to non-appearance by the assessee on the given dates of hearing Ld. Assessing Officer proceeded to frame best judgment assessment and the conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order reads as under: “4.6 Conclusion Drawn: In P&L account submitted by the assesse it is seen that purchase of Rs.10,15,07,838/- and sales of Rs.11,74,12,621/- has been made during the year 2018-19, In this regard it is requested to submit the details of sale and purchase and documentary evidences i.e bill, voucher, e-way bill, description of item, transportation details via 2nd notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T but the assessee has not submitted response further show cause notice issued to the assessee but the assessee has not made any compliance. In absence of any documentary evidences sales and purchase remains unverified and the source of cash deposit/withdrawal remains unexplained. Therefore cash deposit of Rs.15,72,500/- cash withdrawal of Rs.2,29,55,966/- and sale of motor vehicle of Rs.1950500/- remains unexplained. Therefore Rs. 18,36,477/- which is 8% of cash withdrawal of Rs.2,29,55,966/-, cash deposit of Rs.15,72,500/- and sale of motor vehicle of Rs.1950500/- total of which is Rs.53,59,477/- added to the total income of the assessee for the A.Y 2019-20 and penalty u/s 271AAC(1) initiated separately.” 4. Based on the above observation, Ld. Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.53,59,477/- and assessed income at Rs.63,58,306/-. Assessee challenged the additions before the ITA No.1926/PUN/2024 Moshin Ahmad Abdul Lateef 3 ld.CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) though gave sufficient opportunities of hearing to the assessee but then summarily dismissed the appeal confirming the finding of the Assessing Officer. There is no specific discussion on merits by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Considering the facts in entirety and that assessee could not substantiate its case by any representation adducing cogent evidences before the First Appellate Authority, we are of the view that in the given facts and circumstances of the instant appeal and in all fairness the issues raised on merits requires to be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) shall in the course of set- aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Ld.CIT(A) may call for a remand report from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and after considering the submissions/evidences to be filed by the assessee pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the 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 14th day of July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 14th July, 2025. Satish ITA No.1926/PUN/2024 Moshin Ahmad Abdul Lateef 4 आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "