RAJENDRA ANNASAHEB MASUTE HUF,KOLHAPUR V. ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1191/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rajendra Annasaheb Masute HUF, who appealed against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which was based on an assessment order treating agricultural income as unexplained under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had declared agricultural income but did not receive consideration for the claimed expenditures. The appeal was initially dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) due to non-appearance of the assessee despite multiple opportunities. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the medical reasons cited for non-appearance, decided to remit the case back to the ld.CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785962 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: M/s. Chemipol Vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHARAT ANDHALE
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1191/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Rajendra Annasaheb Masute HUF, A/P. Uchgaon, Tal. Karveer, Kolhapur-416005 Maharashtra PAN : AAWHR1574G Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2021-22 is directed against the order dated 12.03.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (ld.CIT(A)/NFAC) (Exemption) emanating out of Assessment Order dated 24.12.2022 passed u/s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Even on the previous date of hearing fixed on 12.06.2025, 24.07.2025 and 26.08.2025 neither the assessee nor any Authorised Representative represented the assessee. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and material available on record. Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Bharat Andhale Date of hearing : 08.10.2025 Date of pronouncement : 27.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1191/PUN/2025 Rajendra Annasaheb Masute HUF 2 3. Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. 4. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessment year in the case of assessee HUF for A.Y. 2021-22 has been framed u/s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act as Best Judgment assessment and addition of Rs.54,91,038/- has been made against the Nil income declared in the income-tax return filed on 31.12.2021. Assessee has preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but the assessee failed to respond to the notices of hearing resulting into dismissal of appeal. Before ld.CIT(A) also, assessee has not responded even though six opportunities were granted. Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol Vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009. We however considering the fact that assessee has declared income from Agriculture showing gross receipts at Rs.54,91,038/- and claimed expenditure of Rs.25,04,475/-. Ld. AO has not considered the expenditure incurred for agricultural operations and has also not accepted the gross agricultural receipts and treated it to be unexplained income u/s.69 of the Act. In the statement of facts filed before ld.CIT(A), it has been stated that due to medical reasons Karta of HUF could not file submissions before ld.AO and even before ld.CIT(A). Considering the facts of the case and also in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. We therefore without dwelling into merits of the case, remit all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A). Needless to mention that in the set aside proceedings ld.CIT(A) shall afford Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1191/PUN/2025 Rajendra Annasaheb Masute HUF 3 reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and effective grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 27th day of October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 27th October, 2025. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "