NANDKUMAR BABAN SASTE,PUNE V. ITO, WARD 8(3), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 99/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Nandkumar Baban Saste, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the addition of Rs. 88,22,870 as income from other sources for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The addition was based on a declaration made under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016, which the assessee claimed was made in ignorance of the law and misrepresentation by his advisor. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the merits of the case and thus restored the matter for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791976 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 14-01-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHARAT ANDHALE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause; Ignorance of law
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.99/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-2018) Nandkumar Baban Saste, at post Moshi, Nageshwar Nagar, Tal-Havelil, Pune, Maharashtra PAN : BMLPS 8044 L vs. ITO, Ward-8(3), Pune (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Bharat Andhale, Addl.CIT (virtual) Date of Hearing : 03.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08.12.2025 ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated 21/02/2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”), which is arising out of assessment order u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 30/03/2022 by the ITO, Ward-8(3), Pune, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA.No.99/PUN./2025 (Nandkumar Baban Saste) 2. Registry has informed that this appeal is barred by limitation by 259 days. Application for condonation of delay along with affidavit has been furnished. The main reason for delay is that the assessee was dependent on the authorized representative/tax consultant for looking after the taxation work and due to inadvertent mistake at the Consultant, did not file the appeal in time. We find that sufficient cause prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal in time and the delay is not intentional. Therefore, adopting a justice oriented approach and also taking guidance from the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107] and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay of 259 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. In the past also, the assessee failed to appear on the dates fixed for hearing on 17/04/2025, 07/05/2025 & 17/07/2025. We, therefore, proceed to adjudicate the appeal exparte qua assessee with the assistance of Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) and the documents available on record. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA.No.99/PUN./2025 (Nandkumar Baban Saste) 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned A.O. has erred in assessing income of Rs. 88,23,010/- as against Income as per Return of Rs. 138/- and addition of Rs. 88,22,870/- is on account of Income from Other Sources. The addition made on that account should be deleted 2. Without prejudice to Ground No 1 the A.O. has erred both on facts and in law in treating amount of Rs. 88,22,870/- as Income from Other Sources should be deleted 3. Without prejudice to Ground No 2, the fact that the relevant details of the amount added are available with the assessee. 4. The Assessing Officer erred in charging interest under sections 234A, 2348 and 234C when in fact there was no default as contemplated by the said sections. 5. The appellant has not concealed any income and it is prayed that the Penalty proceedings u/s 270A initiated by the A.O. should be dropped. 6. Appellant prays for just and equitable relief 7. That the appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete and/or rescind all or any of the GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL on or before the final hearing, if necessities so arises. 8. Appellant prays leave to adduce such evidence to substantiate its case.” 5. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and did not file return of income for A.Y. 2017-18. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued, in response to which assessee, filed return of income on 17/03/2022 declaring income of ₹ 138/-. Subsequently, notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. The reason for reopening is that the assessee made declaration under Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS) disclosing income of ₹ 88,22,870/- for A.Y. 2014-15, but failed to pay due taxes. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee submitted that declaration was made on account of transaction carried out during A.Y. 2014-15 when the assessee entered into joint development agreement executed on 29/01/2014 for the ancestral agricultural land Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA.No.99/PUN./2025 (Nandkumar Baban Saste) located at gat No. 269, Mauhje Handewadi, Hadapsar, Pune for a consideration of ₹ 1,47,91,500/-. In the same development agreement, assessee along with 22 others have received consideration in kind valued at ₹ 88,22,870/- on completion of the proposed project. Ld.AO concluded the proceedings mainly taking note of the declaration made by the assessee under IDS, 2016 during the A.Y. 2014-15 and treated the declaration amount in such application under IDS, 2016 at ₹ 88,22,870/- as unexplained money and made the addition thereof and assessed the income at ₹ 88,23,010/-. 6. Aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and again reiterated the submissions, however, Ld.CIT(A) has passed a cryptic order not dealing with the facts properly and has upheld the addition made by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved with the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the order of Ld.CIT(A). 8. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the records placed before us. The assessee is aggrieved with the addition of ₹ 88,22,870/-. In the written submissions filed, assessee claimed that he is a farmer and has no other income other than agricultural income. He submitted that assessee made declaration under IDS, 2016 in ignorance of law and misrepresentation made by his advisor. It is stated that Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA.No.99/PUN./2025 (Nandkumar Baban Saste) assessee declaration made under IDS, 2016 was purely regarding the joint development agreement entered into in A.Y. 2014-15, on which any tax liability does not arise. We note that Ld.AO has made the impugned addition based on the IDS, 2016 declaration by the assessee. Further Ld.CIT(A), in the impugned order, has only referred the declaration made under IDS, 2016 by the assessee and thereafter concluded the findings observing as under:- “6. Upon perusal of the Declaration that the appellant duly submitted the Declaration under IDS-2016 before PCIT, Pune on 28.09.2016 by declaring the undisclosed income of Rs.88,22,870/- and also calculated tax, surcharge and penalty payable. After this Declaration before the AO and during the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant filed a submission stating that he entered into a JDA with M/s Aradhaya Properties and M/s. Ramsons Associates for development of property situated at Borhadewadi Gat No.269, Haveli Taluk, Pune admeasuring 5050 sq.ft. According to the agreement, the Developers have to develop the land into a residential and commercial construction. The development activities were not started in the property. 7 However, the undisclosed income disclosed in IDS-2016 did not have any such particulars. It is for this reason, the AO treated Rs.88,22,870/- declared in the Form as undisclosed income by virtue of Sec.197(b) of the Scheme. 8. In view of the above facts, the action of the AO is upheld and all the grounds taken are dismissed.” 9. On perusal of the above findings of the Ld.CIT(A), it is evident that Ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with merits in a proper manner and the impugned order cannot be termed as a speaking order which is required to be passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in terms of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. Ld.CIT(A) has also not dealt with merits of the case regarding Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA.No.99/PUN./2025 (Nandkumar Baban Saste) transaction reported in IDS, 2016 and summarily rejected the assessee’s application. 10. Under these given facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the issues raised in the instant appeal deserve to be restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication by way of speaking order as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall grant fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [VINAY BHAMORE] [MANISH BORAD] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune, Dated 08th December, 2025 vr/- Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA.No.99/PUN./2025 (Nandkumar Baban Saste) Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Pune concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. By Order //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "