RAJESH BABURAO SHINDE,PARBHANI V. ITO, WARD- HINGOLI, HINGOLI

ITA 781/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rajesh Baburao Shinde, who did not file a return of income for the assessment year 2015-16. The Income Tax Department, based on information that Shinde deposited Rs. 51,11,900 in an account, issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Following non-compliance with notices and a lack of response to a show cause notice, the Assessing Officer added the amount as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The appeal to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed due to non-compliance with procedural notices. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not provide adequate opportunity for the assessee to present his case and thus remanded the matter for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717684 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 24-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: UOI v. Ashish Agrawal - (2022) 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC), UOI v. Rajeev Bansal ((2024) 469 ITR 46)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH SRIVASTVA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHUBHAM N. RATHI
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 145

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.781/PUN/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajesh Baburao Shinde, Sayala Khating, Tq. Dist. Parbhani- 431402. PAN : CZCPS6546Q Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.07.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the affidavit for condonation that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After Assessee by : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Revenue by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date of hearing : 22.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 12.08.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.781/PUN/2025 2 hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. THE CHALLENGE TO REASSESSMENT 1.1 The Learned Income Tax Officer, Ward Hingoli ['the Ld. JAO'] has erred in initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 145 of the Income tax Act, 1961 [\"the Act'] without serving notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 1.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. JAO has initiated the reassessment proceedings without fulfilling the preconditions required to initiate the reassessment proceedings U/s 148-151 of the Act. Further, the Ld. JAO failed to follow the directions as provided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of UOI v. Ashish Agrawal - (2022) 138 taxmann.com 64 (SC)] 1.3 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of UOI v. Rajeev Bansal ((2024) 469 ITR 46] while passing the order. 1.4 In the above circumstances, facts and in law, the Appellants submits that this case is not fit for initiation of the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, notice issued u/s 148 and the consequential assessment order passed is illegal and deserves to be quashed. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE 2. THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151A 2.1 The Ld. JAO has erred in assuming the jurisdiction to issue the notice u/s 148 which is in non-compliance to the provisions of section 151A of the Act. 2.2 It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act in the present case is bad in law and therefore deserves to be quashed WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE 3. THE NOTICE ISSUED DURING ASSESSMENT IS IN VIOLATION OF CIRCULAR 19/2019 DATED 14.08.2019 3.1 As per the intimation letter dated 25.07.2022. it appears that the DIN is not mentioned in the body of notice u/s 148, therefore, the notice u/s 148 is contrary to the CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 3.2 In the above circumstances, the notice u/s 148 deserves to be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.781/PUN/2025 3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE 4. ADDITION OF ₹ 51,11,900/- U/S 69A OF THE ACT 4.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre ['the Ld. AO'] of ₹ 51,11,900/- u/s 69A of the Act. 4.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO made the addition mechanically, without applying his mind to the facts in the present case 4.3 On the facts and in law in the present case no provisions of section 69A of the Act is attracted. 4.4 In the above facts and circumstances and in law, the addition u/s 69A of the Act is not warranted and deserves to be deleted. 5. LEAVE The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not furnished his return of income for the period under consideration. On the basis of information available with the Department that the assessee has maintained an account with M/s Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. wherein he deposited an amount of Rs.51,11,900/-, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the IT Act on 17.06.2021. Subsequently, in view of Hon’ble Supreme Court order and subsequent instructions issued by CBDT, the relevant information and material was provided to the assessee and thereafter the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer passed the order u/s 148A(d) of the IT Act on 23.07.2022 and reopened the assessment proceedings by issuing notice u/s 148 of the IT Act on 24.07.2022. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.781/PUN/2025 4 In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee e-filed his return of income on 16.02.2023 declaring income of Rs.2,34,760/-. Subsequently, statutory notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) & show- cause notices were also issued to the assessee. Assessee made part compliance to the above notices but failed to reply to the show cause notice dated 14.05.2023. Accordingly the Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.51,11,900/- deposited in the impugned account as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Vide order dated 23.05.2023 the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining the income at Rs.53,46,660/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.2,34,760/- in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. The above assessed income includes unexplained money of Rs.51,11,900/- u/s 69A of the IT Act. 5. Against the above assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under :- “5. During the course of appellate proceedings, a number of opportunities were provided to the appellant, but they remained un- complied with. The following chart provides the details of the opportunities provided to the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.781/PUN/2025 5 Date Event 06.05.2024 First notice u/s 250 was issued for 14.05.2024 via e-mail. 14.05.2024 No written submissions were filed. 22.05.2024 Second notice u/s 250 was issued for 30.05.2024. 30.05.2024 No written submissions were filed. 31.05.2024 Final opportunity - A fresh notice was issued to the appellant granting him an opportunity to submit his response by 07.06.2024, in which it was specifically mentioned that \"Last Opportunity is being given to submit your reply on or before 07.06.2024 failing which case will be decided on merits based on the available records.\". 07.06.2024 No written submissions were filed. However, no submissions were made during the entire appellate proceedings. The appellant during the appellate proceedings did not comply with the notices and hence made no submission in support of grounds of appeal. So it is held that the appellant had nothing more to submit except for raising the ground. 5.1 The Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No. 1025-1027/Chandi/2005 for the A.Y. 2002-03 in the case of M/s Chhabra Land and Housing Ltd, after following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.Ν. Bhattachargee, 118 ITR 461 (SC) held that the appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it. Keeping in view of the aforesaid factual position, the appeal filed by the appellant is, therefore, decided on merits. 6. The facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and had not filed any return of income for AY 2015-16. As per information available with the department, during the year under consideration, assessee had maintained an accounts with M/S. SRI RENUKAMA MULTISTATE URBAN CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LTD (PAN AADAS7782D) wherein he made the deposits of Rs.51,11,900/-. The AO issued notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act on 17.06.2021 but the assessee failed to response. Later on the AO issued various statutory notices/SCN to the AO but the appellant not filed its reply before the AO. Thus the AO concluded that assessee had failed to comply with the show cause notice. Non-compliance behaviour of the assessee against the show cause notice clearly shown that he had nothing to explain and furnish further on this issue. Assessee had neither furnished any explanation/ justification nor submit any documentary evidence against the show cause notice. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 51,11,900/- was treated by AO as unexplained money and added to the total income of the assessee u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.781/PUN/2025 6 7. In the instance of the case the appellant failed to make any submissions in support of grounds of appeal, this gives rise to an undisputable conclusion that the assessee has got nothing more to say in this regard. I have gone through the record before me and based on the record I have decided to adjudicate the issue on the merits of the case. In the instant case the AO has rightly assessed income of Rs.53,46,660/-. Since the appellant failed to substantiate appellant's claim and addition/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 51,11,900/-on account of unexplained money and added to the total income of the assessee u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act is hereby confirmed. 8. Ground No. 1 to 7 of appeal are dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before us that proper opportunity of hearing was not provided by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Ld. AR further contended that in a time span of 30 days total four notices of hearing were issued to the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and further requested to allow the grounds of appeal and delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Ld. AR also made an application wherein request was made to admit the ground no.1, which was not raised before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 8. Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue relied on the order passed by subordinate authorities and requested to confirm Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.781/PUN/2025 7 the same. Ld. DR strongly opposed the request made by the assessee regarding admission of ground which was not raised before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Ld. DR submitted before the bench that the assessee remained non-compliant since beginning of the proceedings. It was pointed out by him that the assessee did not file his return of income u/s 139(1) of the IT Act, the assessee did not reply to the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer, the first appeal was filed belatedly, however the delay was condoned by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and even after that the assessee remained absent and did not furnish any reply before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC which resulted in ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. And again the appeal before this Tribunal is also filed belatedly i.e. with the delay of 191 days. In the light of all these facts, Ld. DR requested to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. 9. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that on the basis of information available with the Department, that the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.51,11,900/- in impugned account and income tax return has not been filed, the case of the assessee was Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.781/PUN/2025 8 reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act and notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee. The assessee furnished his return of income in response to above notice however did not reply to the show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer therefore the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act on a total income of Rs.53,46,660/- after making addition of Rs.51,11,900/- u/s 69A of the IT Act being unexplained money. In first appeal proceedings before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee remained absent consequently the appeal was dismissed by an ex-parte order however Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC after considering the material available on record confirmed the addition made by the assessee. 10. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice without going into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh as per fact & law and also direct to decide the additional ground if any raised by the assessee after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to produce submission/explanation/evidences and documents in support of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.781/PUN/2025 9 grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. 11. Since we have set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back to his file to decide the appeal afresh as per fact and law including additional ground if any raised by the assessee, we refrain from adjudicating the remaining grounds, whether legal or factual. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 12th day of August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 12th August, 2025. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "