NEETA SUNIL GADE,AHMEDNAGAR V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 1979/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Neeta Sunil Gode against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, which confirmed the addition of Rs.97,90,652 to her income under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer following a search and seizure operation that revealed unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's account with M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. The assessee did not respond to the notices issued under sections 148 and 142(1) of the Act, leading to the addition. The Tribunal noted procedural issues with the notice issuance and non-compliance with statutory requirements, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 789683 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Abdulwahid Abdulkarim Qureshi vs. ITO, Daujee Abhushan Bhandar (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India, GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited v. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH M. MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRASAD S BHANDARI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Search and seizure; Co-operative Credit Society
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 132; 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1979/PUN/2024 Assessment year : 2017-18 Neeta Sunil Gode At post Rahuri, Nagar-Manmad Road, Dist. Ahmednagar – 413705 Vs. ITO, Ward – 2, Ahmednagar PAN: AHWPG3973B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Prasad S Bhandari Department by : Shri Manish M. Mehta Date of hearing : 03-11-2025 Date of pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2017-18. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the addition of Rs.97,90,652/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has filed her return of income on 13.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.9,64,710/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of M/s. Shri Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.1979/PUN/2024 Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. On 26.05.2017 during which it was found that huge money was deposited in the bank accounts maintained by the society. During the course of assessment proceedings the society could not explain the source of huge cash deposits. During the course of search and seizure action it was further found that the assessee had maintained accounts and has entered into financial transactions with the society. On verification it was found that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.97,90,652/- in M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Accordingly the Assessing Officer initiated re-assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2021 was issued and served on the assessee. Since the assessee did not furnish any return of income in response to the said notice the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act which was also duly served on the assessee. Since the assessee did not comply to the said notices nor complied to the subsequent notices issued, the Assessing Officer, in absence of any explanation before him to explain the source of such cash deposits, made addition of the same u/s 69 of the Act. 4. Since the assessee did not furnish any submission before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.1979/PUN/2024 Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.1979/PUN/2024 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that despite asking the Assessing Officer to supply the reasons for reopening of the assessment he did not supply the same, for which the assessee could not make any submission. He submitted that the notice dated 31.03.2021 received by the assessee shows in the portal of the department as 01.04.2021. Relying on various decisions he submitted that since the notice is dated 01.04.2021 as per the portal of the department, therefore, such notice being not in accordance with law, the entire re-assessment proceedings are to be quashed. 7. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Abdulwahid Abdulkarim Qureshi vs. ITO vide ITA Nos.893 & 894/PUN/2024 order dated 06.08.2025 for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18, he submitted Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.1979/PUN/2024 that when the notice dated 31.03.2021 was served upon the assessee on 03.04.2021 through e-mail, such notice issued after 31.03.2021 without following due procedure mandated under the provisions of section 148 and 148A of the Act effective from 01.04.2021 should be quashed. 8. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Daujee Abhushan Bhandar (P.) Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in (2022) 444 ITR 41 (All), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that mere digitally signing notice is not issuance of notice and point of time when a digitally signed notice in form of electronic record is entered in computer resources outside control of originator, i.e., assessing authority, that shall be date and time of issuance of notice under section 148, read with section 149. He accordingly submitted that the re-assessment proceedings should be quashed. 9. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. He submitted that since the assessee did not respond to any of the notices the Assessing Officer was constrained to make addition and further in absence of any submission before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC he has rightly upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. He further submitted that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act was dispatched on 31.03.2021 at 6.35 pm at the post office at Ahmednagar and further this notice was also issued on 31.03.2021 through e-mail to the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.1979/PUN/2024 10. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the assessee in the instant case did not file any return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act nor responded to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act for which the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.97,90,652/- u/s 69 of the Act on the ground that the assessee could not explain the source of such cash deposits in the account maintained with M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. We find since the assessee did not make any submission before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, he sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that notice dated 31.03.2021 u/s 148 is issued after 31.03.2021 and therefore, such notice being not in accordance with law, the entire re-assessment proceedings are to be quashed. Further it is also his submission that despite asking the Assessing Officer to supply the reasons he did not supply the same which is in violation of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited v. ITO reported in (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). 11. We find it is an admitted fact that due to non-compliance to the statutory notices the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Further, due to non-submission of any reply the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Under these circumstances, Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.1979/PUN/2024 we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to adjudicate the issue afresh and in accordance with law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC by filing the requisite details including the submissions, if any, on the issue of validity of re-assessment proceedings, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28th November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 28th November, 2025 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No.1979/PUN/2024 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 17.11.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 17.11.2025 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "