RAHUL SUDAM BANKAR, JUNNAR, PUNE,PUNE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1769/PUN/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Rahul Sudam Bankar against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which dismissed his appeal in limine regarding the assessment year 2017-18. The appellant, an agriculturist, had filed a return declaring a total income of Rs.10,482, which was deemed invalid. Following information from the Audit Information Management System (AIMS) about substantial cash deposits during the demonetization period, the Income Tax Officer (ITO) issued notices under sections 148 and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the appellant failed to comply with. Consequently, the ITO made a best judgment assessment, taxing the unexplained cash deposits as per section 69A of the Act. The NFAC dismissed the appellant's subsequent appeal without examining the merits, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32543 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B. S. RAJPUROHIT

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1769/PUN/2024 \u000bनधा\u000fरण वष\u000f / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rahul Sudam Bankar, Ganesh Mandir Chowk, Varulwadi, Narayangaon, Junnar, Pune 410504 Maharashtra PAN : ARIPB2154P Vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), Akurdi, Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the appellant directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 27.06.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual, stated to be an Agriculturist deriving income from agricultural activities. The appellant filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2017- 18 on 25.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.10,482/- which was not a valid return. On the basis of information reflected in Audit Information Management System (AIMS) that the appellant made cash deposits of Rs.11,56,000/- during demonetization period with HDFC Bank, Narayangaon, a notice u/s.148 was issued to the appellant on Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri B.S.Rajpurohit Date of hearing : 14.10.2024 Date of pronouncement : 14.10.2024 ITA No.1769/PUN/2024 2 31.03.2021 calling upon him to file the return of income. Notices u/s.142(1) were issued to the appellant asking him to furnish the explanation regarding the source of cash deposit along with documentary evidence. The appellant neither complied with notice u/s.148 nor notices u/s.142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 23.03.2022 was constrained to make best judgment assessment u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act. While doing so, the AO brought to tax the said cash deposits of Rs.11,56,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine, without going into merits of the addition. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. I therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative. 6. I heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the material on record. From the perusal of the impugned order, it would be clear that the ld. NFAC without adverting to the submissions of the appellant that the issue of cash deposits was examined in the original assessment passed u/s.143(3) and therefore the issue cannot be examined in the re- assessment proceedings, dismissed the appeal in limine. Further, the NFAC had fell in serious error by not adjudicating the issue in appeal on merits. The settled position of law mandates the NFAC to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issue raised in appeal on merits. In this regard, reference is being made to a decision of the Hon’ble ITA No.1769/PUN/2024 3 Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. Therefore, I deem it proper to remit the matter to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo disposal of the issue in appeal on merits by passing a speaking order after allowing reasonable opportunity to the appellant, in accordance with law. I order accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 14th day of October, 2024. Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 14th October, 2024. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ\tेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\f / The Appellant. 2. \r\u000eयथ\f / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय \rितिनिध, 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. "