PRAMODKUMAR KESHARCHAND BOTHARA,SHIRUR V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE, PUNE

ITSSA 10/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Pramodkumar Kesharchand Bothara, the appellant, contesting an assessment order under sections 153C and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which added Rs. 60,00,000 as unexplained investment under section 69. The primary issues revolved around procedural lapses in the assessment process, including the recording of a consolidated satisfaction note for different assessment years and reliance on uncorroborated third-party statements and unverified documents. The CIT(A) had dismissed the initial appeal due to a delay in filing, which the Tribunal later found to be justifiable due to a medical emergency in the appellant's family.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782932 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAYANAND JAWALIKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PARAS MUNOT
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Unexplained investment; Document seized; Documents seized; Loose papers
• Section: 144; 69

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”बी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / IT(SS)A No.10/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pramodkumar Kesharchand Bothara, Main Road, At/Post: Nhawara, Tal: Shirur, Ghodnadi, Maharashtra – 412211. V s. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Pune DGIT(Investigation), Pune. PAN: AJTPB1238R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Paras Munot Revenue by Shri Dayanand Jawalikar – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 14/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 31/10/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[ld.CIT(A)], Pune-12 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2017-18, dated 28.01.2025 emanating from Assessment Order u/s.153C r.w.s 144 of the I.T.Act, dated 30.12.2021. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.10/PUN/2025 [A] 2 “1. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact in making addition and Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law and in fact in making addition of Rs.60,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act without taking into consideration the fact that appellant has not paid any cash on money amount as unexplained investment. 2. The Ld. AO erred in law and in facts by recording a consolidated satisfaction note for different Assessment Years in the impugned proceedings, whereas a separate satisfaction note is required to be recorded under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act for each Assessment Year. This failure to comply with the legal requirement vitiates the entire assessment proceedings. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and also Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in upholding the addition of Rs.60,00,000/-under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE, solely based on uncorroborated third-party statements. The appellant prays that the said arbitrary addition of Rs.60,00,000/-may please be deleted. The appellant submits that reliance on unverified third-party records, without proper scrutiny, makes the assessment order unsustainable in law. 4. The Ld. AO erred in law and in facts by passing order based on approval u/s 153D mechanically on the same date, without adherence to the necessary procedures. This method of approval disregards the procedural requirements set forth by the relevant authorities or regulations and undermines the transparency and fairness of the approval process. The failure to follow due process, including the lack of individual scrutiny, leads to the bypassing of required steps, which can result in improper or erroneous decisions, ultimately affecting the fairness of the outcomes. 5. The Ld. AO and also CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact by relying on Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.10/PUN/2025 [A] 3 unreliable seized documents, including loose papers and an Excel sheet without a further enquiry falling which the addition made in the hands of the assessee fails and, is not justified. The papers contain errors such as incorrect names, missing dates, and manipulations, and lack signatures to authenticate transactions. The Excel sheet, seized from Mr. Pravin Gawali's residence, shows arithmetical inconsistencies and has no correlation with the loose papers from Mr. Umakant Kuwar's residence, rendering them inadmissible as evidence. Furthermore, post-search enquiry statements cannot be considered as corroborative evidence. 6. The Appellant craves leaves to add or amend any ground of appeal.” Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[ld.CIT(A)] dismissed the appeal of the Assessee filed against assessment order u/s.153C r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.12.2021 for A.Y.2017-18 only on the ground of Delay of 124 days. 3. Admittedly, there was a delay of 124 days in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A).Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal. During the appellate proceedings before the ld.CIT(A), Assessee has filed an Affidavit stating that due to Medical Emergency in his family, Assessee could not file appeal in Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.10/PUN/2025 [A] 4 time. Assessee had explained in the Affidavit that his wife was ill from October 2021, hence, there was a delay in filing appeal. 4. In this case, we are of the opinion that since there was a medical emergency in the family of the Assessee, there was sufficient and reasonable cause for delay. Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. Assessee is not going to gain by consciously delaying the appeal. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we direct ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay of 124 days and decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the order of ld.CIT(A) is set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31 October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- VINAY BHAMORE Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददिधंक / Dated : 31 Oct, 2025/ SGR Printed from counselvise.com IT(SS)A No.10/PUN/2025 [A] 5 आदेशकीप्रनिनलनपअग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपऩलधर्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. नवभधगऩयप्रनिनिनर्, आयकर अपऩलऩय अनर्करण, “बऩ” बेंच, पपणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गधर्ाफ़धइल / Guard File. आदेशधिपसधर / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपऩलऩय अनर्करण, पपणे/ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "