PRAVIN SAKHARAM GULAMBE,RAIGAD V. ITO WARD 5 , PANVEL

ITA 2673/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Pravin Sakharam Gulambe, the appellant, who contested the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (CIT(A)), which dismissed his appeal regarding the assessment year 2015-16. The primary issues in the appeal were the dismissal of the appeal on procedural grounds without considering the merits, and the substantive additions made to the assessee's income, which included undisclosed business income and unexplained money under Sections 144 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT found procedural improprieties in the CIT(A)'s handling of the case and remanded it for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472327 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND DESAI
• Assessee Lawyers: CHANDAN KATARIYA VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Business income; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144; 250; 69A

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2673/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Pravin Sakharam Gulambe, Sjhubham Raje Enterprises, House No.70A, At Bhagad, Post Vile, Tal Mangaon, Dist Raigad, Maharashtra – 402308. PAN: ASLPG2336A V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Panvel. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Chandan Katariya -AR(Virtual) Revenue by Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 13/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 18/02/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], under ITA No.2673/PUN/2024 [A] 2 section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated 23.01.2024 for A.Y.2015-16. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground under Section 249(4)(b) and ignored on law and facts as the tax is deducted at source and deposited to the credit of central government against PAN of the appellant. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in law and facts by confirming the addition of Rs.39,76,144 based on an incorrect and arbitrary estimation of business income. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals violated the principles of natural justice by confirming the assessment without giving the appellant an adequate opportunity to present their case or considering the reasons for non-compliance. The appellant's failure to respond was due to genuine hardships, which were not adequately considered. 4. The Learned Commissioner Income Tax Appeals has erred in confirming order of Learned Assessing officer by making an addition of Rs. 39,76,144 without properly verifying the records and accounts ITA No.2673/PUN/2024 [A] 3 of the appellant's business. The best judgment assessment under Section 144 was made in haste and without proper investigation, leading to an inflated estimation of income. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals has erred in law and facts by confirming addition under Section 69A of Rs.16,00,000. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, delete, alter, modify, or amend any or all of the above grounds of appeal and to submit such further grounds as may be necessary or required at the time of hearing of the appeal, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. At the outset, ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer in the order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, made couple of additions i.e. undisclosed business income at Rs.39,76,144/- and Unexplained money under section 69A of the Act at Rs.16,00,000/-. 2.1 Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine solely on the ITA No.2673/PUN/2024 [A] 4 provision of section 249(4)(b) of the Act by not admitting appeal alleging that the appellant has not paid an amount equal to the amount of advance tax which was payable by him, if no return of income has been filed by him. 2.2 However, before us ld.Counsel for the Assessee submitted that tax at source was deducted and deposited to the credit of the central government and there was no liability to pay any advance tax. Considering the contentions raised on behalf of the assessee and the fact that the ld.CIT(A) has not delved into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue back to the ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) is obliged to pass the order in terms of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act and in accordance with Law. The Assessee is directed to provide proper email id to the Department for getting hearing notices through ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant ITA No.2673/PUN/2024 [A] 5 and not to seek adjournment unless otherwise required. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 3. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18th February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (DR. MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 18th Feb, 2025/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. ITA No.2673/PUN/2024 [A] 6 आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "