RAFIQ MAHBOOBSAB SHAIKH,LATUR V. THE INCOME TAX WARD-2, LATUR

ITA 2779/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Rafiq Mahboobsab Shaikh, the appellant, who contested the additions made to his income by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for unexplained investment in agricultural land amounting to Rs. 15,00,000. The CIT(A) further enhanced this addition to Rs. 18,50,740 without sufficient justification. The appellant argued that he was not given a fair opportunity to present his case, leading to an ex-parte order. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's request for a re-hearing and set aside the CIT(A)'s decision, remanding the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 46797 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A.D.KULKARNI
• Assessee Lawyers: BASHIRUDDIN SHAIKH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Unexplained investment
• Section: 148; 144; 250

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \"बी\" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"B\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2779/PUN/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Rafiq Mahboobsab Shaikh, Near Sursavali Darga, Patel Chowk, Mujawar Galli, Latur-413512 Maharashtra PAN-CRCPS6425E Vs ITO Ward-2, Latur Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Bashiruddin Shaikh Revenue by : Shri A.D. Kulkarni, Additional CIT Date of hearing : 03.04.2025 Date of pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) NFAC u/s 250 of the Act dated 07.10.2024 for A.Y. 2012-13 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 21 days in filing of the instant appeal. We have heard both the sides. On going through the application for condonation of delay we notice that appellant’s father was facing some medical issues and the assessee was required to attend his father. Finding it to be a reasonable cause we condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 2 ITA No.2779/PUN/2024 3. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. AO & Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [\"Ld. CIT(A)\") erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition U/s 69 of Rs. 15,00,000/-by concluding that the source of investment for the purchase of agricultural land was not adequately explained. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) enhanced the taxable income to Rs. 18,50,740/- without sufficient justification and directed the Ld. AO to adopt this figure while giving effect to the order under Section 250(6) of the Act. This enhancement is arbitrary and contrary to the facts on record. 3. That the Appellant craves leave to add or alter or any other grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 4. Though the assessee has raised grounds on merits but the main contention of the assessee is that the assessee failed to appear on various notices of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A) resulting in ex-parte order. He therefore prayed that the issue on merits may please be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A). On the other hand Ld. DR supported the order of lower authorities. 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We notice that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income. Based on the information about purchase of immovable property by the assessee notice u/s 148 issued for carrying out the assessment proceedings. Assessee failed to appear on the days of hearing. Ld. AO based on the information received from Joint Registrar Class II observed that assessee is having 50% share of immovable property purchased for Rs. 30,00,000/- Ld. AO passed best judgement u/s 144 3 ITA No.2779/PUN/2024 r.w.s. 147 and made the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- towards unexplained investment. Thereafter assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but failed to appear on date of hearing. Ld. CIT(A) based on the file records enhanced the addition by Rs. 18,50,740/- It is claimed in the grounds of appeal that fair opportunity was not granted before confirming the addition made by Ld. AO and also not giving notice before enhancing the addition. 6. We therefore in the larger interest of justice deem it proper to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and set aside the issue raised on merits in the instant case to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication. It is however directed that Ld. CIT(A) may call for remand report from Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) if needed and decide the issue on merit by way of passing order u/s 250(6) of the Act. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment. Finding of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 09th day of April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दििांक / Dated: 09th April, 2025. Neeta 4 ITA No.2779/PUN/2024 आिेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. धवभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, \"बी\" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, \"B\" Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ा फाइल / Guard File. आिेशािुसार / BY ORDER, वररष्ठ धिजी सधचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune "