MR. MANOJ N. PERE,AURANGABAD V. ITO, WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD

ITA 2676/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Manoj Nandikishor Pere, who appealed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which was based on an assessment order alleging unexplained cash deposits and unreported income for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was the incorrect reporting of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 1,50,00,000, whereas the actual deposit was Rs. 50,00,000 from explained sources. The assessee also contested the addition of Rs. 1,60,650 as income from house property and the reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on allegedly incorrect reasons. The ITAT noted the assessee's non-compliance during the pandemic and granted a de novo assessment to allow the assessee a fair opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717689 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVINDRA S. DAREKAR; PRASAD S. BHANDARI THROUGH
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Non compliance
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \"ए\" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"A\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2676/PUN/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Manoj Nandikishor Pere, A3, 01st Floor, Manohar Vastu, Opp. Hi Tech Computers, Tilak Nagar, Aurangabad-431005 Maharashtra PAN-AMUPP7701M Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Aurangabad अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee by: CAs Ravindra S. Darekar & Prasad S. Bhandari (through virtual) Department by: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing: 07-08-2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13-08-2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which in turn is arising out of assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 dated 17.03.2022. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1) On the facts and in law the A.O. has erred in making addition u/s. 69A of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-on account of unexplained cash deposited in bank whereas the actual cash deposited in bank is only Rs. 50,00,000/- (which is also from explained sources). Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.2676/PUN/2024 2) On the facts and in law the A.O. has erred in making addition u/s 69A in spite of the fact that the actual cash deposit of Rs. 50,00,000/- in bank is from explained sources. 3) On the facts and in law the A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs. 1,60,650/- on account of interest income/income from house property. 4) On the facts and in law the A.O. has erred in reopening the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 on the basis of factually incorrect reason that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- in saving bank account 5) The appellant craves leave to add alter delete above or any other ground/s of appeal. 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the main reason for issuing notice u/s 148 and carrying out the reassessment proceedings was to examine the source of cash deposit of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- He submitted that the correct amount of cash deposit is Rs. 50,00,000/- and not Rs. 1,50,00,000/- He further submitted that the assessee has sufficient documentary evidence to explain the source of alleged cash deposits. He also fairly admitted that due to unavoidable circumstances assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities and therefore prayed that one more opportunity may please be granted and the issues may be restored back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for Denovo assessment. 4. On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of both the lower authorities. 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The assessee who is an individual has not filed the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. As per the information available with the Department the cash of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- deposited in Saving Bank account with Aurangabad Dist. Central Co-op. Bank and also rental income of Rs. 2,29,500/- from M/s B. G. Appliances Pvt. Ltd. Notices sent by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 148 and 142(1) of the Act were not complied with. Ld. AO passed best judgement assessment u/s 144 r.w.s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act making Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.2676/PUN/2024 addition of Rs. 1,51,60,650/- The assessee challenged the additions before Ld. CIT(A) and in the statement of facts stated that the correct figure of cash deposit is 50,00,000/- and not Rs. 1,50,00,000/- As regards the alleged rental income of Rs. 2,29,500/- it was stated that the same was on account of hire charges received by assessee from B.G. Appliances Pvt. Ltd. for hiring Tata Sumo Vehicle. However after filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) assessee failed to appear on the date fixed on 17.09.2024, 26.09.2024 and 07.10.2024. Due to non compliance Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. 6. We note that the notice of hearing sent in the course of assessment proceedings were sent on 13.11.2021, 04.02.2022 and 16.02.2022 which fall during the Covid 19 Pandemic restriction period. Considering the practical difficulties faced by the assessee we are of the considered view that the issue needs to be restored to the file of Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for carrying out denovo assessment proceedings and decide the issue on merits of the case after considering the submissions and evidences placed by the assessee on being provided reasonable opportunity of hearing. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 13th day of August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; ददिांक / Dated: 13th August, 2025. Neeta Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.2676/PUN/2024 आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. धवभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, \"A\" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, \"A\" Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ा फाइल / Guard File. आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER, Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "