OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI,JALNA V. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD

ITA 1011/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Omprakash Asaram Mantri, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A), Pune-12, which confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding unexplained gold and silver articles amounting to Rs.7,58,343. The additions were initially made following a search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, conducted on 02.05.2013. The assessee's failure to appear in multiple hearings led to the confirmation of these additions. The ITAT noted the absence of a speaking order from the CIT(A) and the need to adhere to the CBDT Instruction dated 11.05.1994 concerning gold jewellery. Despite the assessee's non-appearance, the ITAT decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a comprehensive re-evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 652934 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAYANAND JAWALIKAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1011/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Omprakash Asaram Mantri, Abhay Oil Industries, Plot No.C 231, Old MIDC Area, Jalna – 431203, Maharashtra PAN : AAWPM2711J Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15 is directed against the order dated 28.02.2025 of CIT(A), Pune-12 passed u/s.250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) which inturn is arising out of the Assessment Order dated 22.03.2016 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. 2. When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. With the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and on perusal of record, we proceed to adjudicate the case. We on perusal of the impugned order notice that assessee failed to appear on the dates of hearing on which few fell during covid-19 pandemic outbreak prevailed across the country. Ld. Departmental Representative did Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Dayanand Jawalikar Date of hearing : 09.06.2025 Date of pronouncement : 16.06.2025 ITA No.1011 /PUN/2025 Omprakash Asaram Mantri 2 not objected if the grounds raised in this appeal are restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. 3. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and was subjected to search u/s.132 of the Act conducted on 02.05.2013 along with Mantri Group of Jalna and their family members. Return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 filed on 17.02.2015 declaring income of Rs.1,01,496/-. Learned Assessing Officer (AO) carried out the assessment proceedings after validly serving statutory notices and thereafter made the additions totaling to Rs.8,92,343/- and assessed income at Rs.9,93,840/-. Against the assessment order dated 22.03.2016 assessee preferred before ld.CIT(A) but then almost for six years various dates of hearing were fixed but assessee failed to appear resulting into confirming of addition towards unexplained gold jewellery at Rs.5,12,513/- and unexplained silver articles valuing Rs.2,45,830/-. Assessee has challenged the total addition of Rs.7,58,343/- before this Tribunal but failed to make any explanation. In the grounds of appeal, assessee has stated that gold and silver articles accumulated for the last fifty years since assessee’s marriage and other festive occasions. 4. We notice that ld.CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order and has also not dealt with CBDT Instruction dated 11.05.1994 about the gold jewellery treated to be explained and not to be seized in case of search proceedings. Though the assessee has failed to make any representation before the lower authorities but still ld.CIT(A) is required to pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. For this proposition, we place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) ITA No.1011 /PUN/2025 Omprakash Asaram Mantri 3 vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. 5. Under the given facts and circumstances and there being no objection raised by the ld. Departmental Representative, we in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, deem it proper to restore the issue raised on merit to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication for which reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be afforded to the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide latest email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from 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 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 16th day of June, 2025. Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 16th June, 2025. Satish ITA No.1011 /PUN/2025 Omprakash Asaram Mantri 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, “SMC” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune "