RAGHUNATH MARUTI BHOSALE,PUNE V. ITO WARD 2(1), KOLHAPUR

ITA 1032/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Raghunath Maruti Bhosale, who appealed against the orders of the Learned CIT(A) concerning additions made to his income for the Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2010-11, which were treated as unexplained investments. The primary contention was the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s decision, which the assessee argued was due to non-receipt of hearing notices. The Tribunal noted the repeated non-compliance of the assessee in previous hearings but decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a comprehensive examination on merits, particularly focusing on the source of the investments claimed to be loans from Mr. Umesh Shinde.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 653151 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAYANAND
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 132

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \"एस एम सी\" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"SMC\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1032&1033/PUN/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-2006 & 2010-11 Shri Raghunath Maruti Bhosale, Lalashree, 32B, Laxmi Vasahat, Jawahar Nagar, Kolhapur-416012 Maharashtra PAN-AAZPB3548D Vs ITO, Ward- 2(1), Kolhapur Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Dayanand Jawalikar Date of hearing : 11.06.2025 Date of pronouncement : 19.06.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The present appeal at the instance of assessee are directed against the separate orders of Ld. ADDL/JCIT(A)-3 Bengaluru [(Ld. CIT(A)] framed u/s 250 r.w.s. 254 of the Income Tax Act evenly dated 24.02.2025 and are arising out of the separate Assessment Orders for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2010-11 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 148 of the Act evenly dated 07.03.2013. 2. Since assessee has raised common grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2005-06 and A.Y. 2010-11, I am reproducing below the grounds of appeal raised for A.Y. 2005-06:- 2 ITA No.1032&1033/PUN/2025 1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT appeal erred in passing Ex-parte order u/s 250 of The Income Tax Act, 1961 without discussing the merit of the case, appellant prays for restoring the matters to the file of learned CIT Appeal for considering the appeal on merit. The notice for hearing was send to email address which was not used by the assessee and hence the assessee was unable to comply with the notices. 2. On facts and in circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming additions of Rs. 7,50,000/- in the hands of assessee as unexplained investment. 3. On facts and in circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on merit in not considering the fact that original source of investment has been offered in declaration made of Shri. Umesh shinde in search action u/s 132 conducted on him. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 3. When the case was called for none appeared on behalf of the assessee. With the assistance of Ld. DR and on perusal of records I note that ground No. 1 has been raised stating that since the order of Ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte, the matter may please be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for considering the appeal on merit. 4. I have heard Ld. DR and perused the record placed before us. The assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the addition of Rs. 7,50,000/- and Rs. 9,11,500/- for A.Y. 2005-06 and A.Y. 2010-11 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for unexplained investment. In the first round of proceedings the assessee failed to appear and assessee’s appeal was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) and then this Tribunal vide order dated 14.06.2019 remanding the issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A). But surprisingly assessee again failed to make any compliance to the notice of hearing given by the Ld. 3 ITA No.1032&1033/PUN/2025 CIT(A) on six occasions. As a result Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Again the assessee preferred the appeal before this Tribunal and has raised the ground No. 1 for restoring the matter to the file of Ld. CIT(A). The assessee has not furnished any Paper Book before this Tribunal nor any specific details have been mentioned in the facts. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances and also observing that similar nature of additions have been made in other assessment years and still pending for adjudication therefore in the larger interest of justice I remit the impugned issues back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) who shall give fair opportunity to the assessee to explain and prove the genuineness of the loan received from Mr. Umesh Shinde and then Ld. CIT(A) can decide in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits for both the impugned years are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeals of the assessee for A.Y. 2005-06 and A.Y. 2010-11 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 19th day of June, 2025. Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; दििांक / Dated: 19th June, 2025. Neeta 4 ITA No.1032&1033/PUN/2025 आिेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / 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, \"SMC\" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, \"SMC\" Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ा फाइल / Guard File. आिेशािुसार / BY ORDER, //True Copy// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "