MR BHARAT DATTA NAKHAVA,RAIGAD V. ITO WD-3 , PANVEL

ITA 1982/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Bharat Datta Nakhava, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC which upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The additions pertained to cash deposits and withdrawals in the assessee's bank account, which were not explained satisfactorily by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue had been remanded back to the CIT(A) for a previous assessment year and decided to follow the same procedure for the current year, providing the assessee another opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826747 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No.1951/PUN/2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH SINHA VIRTUAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV KHANDELWAL VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Competent authority
• Section: 148; 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1982/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Mr. Bharat Datta Nakhava, Bodani Saral, Alibag, Raigad- 402201. PAN : APAPN1469D Vs. ITO, Ward-3, Panvel. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Manish Sinha (Virtual) Date of hearing : 22.12.2025 Date of pronouncement : 05.01.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1982/PUN/2025 2 prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in upholding the action of the Officer at the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in making an addition of Rs 9,58,000 under section 69A of the Act, being cash deposited by the appellant in his bank account. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the impugned addition inasmuch as he has not correctly appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety and hence, the impugned addition is bad in law and needs to be deleted. The appellant further, contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer inasmuch as the cash deposited by the appellant is out of his business activities and hence, the impugned addition made under section 69A is bad in law and needs to be deleted. 2. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs 28,86,650 under section 69A of the Act, being 10 per cent of the cash withdrawn by the appellant from his bank account. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making the impugned addition inasmuch as he has not correctly appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety and hence, the impugned addition is bad in law and needs to be deleted. The appellant further, contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer inasmuch as the cash withdrawn by the appellant is for his business activities and hence, the impugned addition made under section 69A is bad in law and needs to be deleted. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1982/PUN/2025 3 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of appeal.” 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not furnished his return of income for the period under consideration. On the basis of information available on insight portal that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.9,58,000/- in his bank account maintained with Mahanagar Cooperative Urban Bank and has also withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,88,66,500/- from the same bank account and no return of income was furnished. Therefore, the Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee and notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee after following due procedure and approval from the competent authority. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) and show-cause notice respectively were issued to the assessee. The assessee did not made any compliance in response to above notices, therefore, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 27.02.2024 completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act and determined total income at Rs.38,44,650/- as against no return filed by the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1982/PUN/2025 4 5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of assessee itself vide ITA No.1951/PUN/2025 order dated 06.10.2025 for the assessment year 2018-19 has already set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for deciding the appeal afresh by observing as under :- “4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and assessment for A.Y. 2018-19 completed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act on 27.02.2024 and ld. AO made addition of Rs.28,44,560/- as assessee has not filed the regular return of income. Aggrieved with the additions assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but then on the given dates of hearing fixed on 09.09.2024, 28.10.2024 and 25.02.2025 assessee failed to appear. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that assessee has necessary details in support of its claim that impugned addition is uncalled for. However, due to non- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1982/PUN/2025 5 appearance before ld.CIT(A) the grounds raised by the assessee have been dismissed. 5. We therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice deem it proper to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to go before ld.CIT(A). In the set aside proceedings ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide in accordance with law and 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 ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is hereby set aside and 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.” 8. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal in the case of assessee itself (supra), we deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for this assessment year also i.e. A.Y. 2019-20 and remand the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to produce relevant documents/evidences/submissions in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1982/PUN/2025 6 law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 05th day of January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 05th January, 2026. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr.CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "