RAMCHANDRA SITARAM MALKAR,PANVEL V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL

ITA 307/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Ramchandra Sitaram Malkar against the order of the Assessing Officer concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The appeal contested several additions made by the Assessing Officer, including unexplained money and unexplained investments under various sections of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed online but did not include the required order of the CIT(A), and instead included a recovery letter. Despite multiple hearings, no representative for the assessee appeared, and the necessary documents were not provided, leading to the dismissal of the appeal as defective.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469574 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A.D.KULKARNI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 250; 69A

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.307/PUN/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ramchandra Sitaram Malkar, At-Ajivali, Post- Ajivali, Taluka Panvel- 410206 Maharashtra PAN-BCNPM7648N Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri A.D. Kulkarni- Additional CIT Date of hearing : 02.04.2025 Date of pronouncement : 04.04.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order u/s 250 of the Act dated 25.03.2022. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned Assessing Officer erred in law by not considering documents submitted during assessment proceeding u/s, 147 in respect of explaining source of cash deposit of Rs.8,00,000 on 12/04/2012 in Dena Bank A/c.056710024117. Hence, the assessment order passed is bad in law in respect of addition of unexplained money r.ws. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of Rs.8,00,000. Appellant, therefore, prays that the addition of Rs.8,00,000 as unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE be held as invalid and shall be deleted in toto. 2 ITA No.307/PUN/2024 2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in law by not calculating correctly saving bank interest addition of Rs. 18,091. Actual saving bank interest is Rs.7,986 which includes Dena bank saving interest is Rs.7,859 and SBI saving bank interest is Rs.127. Appellant, therefore, prays that the addition of saving bank interest of Rs. 18,091 shall be reduced to Rs.7,986. 3. The learned Assessing Officer erred by considering addition of property purchase of Rs.54,36,000 in joint name with Appellant on 07/08/2012. There was no such property purchase by the Appellant with joint owner for Rs.54,36,000 on 07/08/2012. Appellant has purchased another agriculture land survey no.64/2/b at Nogdoli, Taluka Khalapur purchased on 12/06/2012 for Rs.8,17,500/- in joint name with his brother Mr. Ramesh Sitaram Malkar and Mrs. Asmita Ashok Malkar (wife of deceased brother Mr. Ashok Sitaram Malkar) having equal share. Payment of this land purchased on 12/06/2012 for Rs.8,17,500/- was made from Dena 4. Bank Account No. 056710024522 of Ramesh Sitaram Malkar on 16/06/2012. Extracts of said agriculture land purchase at Nigdoli is attached. Appellant share in purchase of this land on 12/06/2012 is Rs.2,72,500. Appellant, therefore, prays that the learned Assessing Officer does not have any evidence in respect of addition of property purchase of Rs.54,36,000 in joint name with Appellant on 07/08/2012. Appellant, therefore, prays that the addition of Unexplained Investment u/s.69 r.ws 115BBE of Rs. 18,12,000 (1/3rd of Rs.54,36,000) be held as invalid and shall be deleted in toto. 4 5. The learned Assessing Officer erred by not considering the fact that there were three joint owners in purchase of property including Appellant and payment for purchase of said two properties must have been paid by other joint owner. Payment for property purchase of Rs. 93,00,000 dated 13/02/2013 and of Rs.8,17,500 on 12/06/2012 was made from joint property owner Mr.Ramesh Sitaram Malkar (Brother of Appellant) details of which are attached in statement of facts. This explains source of payment made for property purchase by the Appellant during AY 2013-14. Appellant, therefore, prays that the addition of Unexplained Investment u/s.69 r.ws 115BBE of Rs. 49,12,000 be held as invalid and shall be deleted in toto. 6. Appellant prays that all the attachments submitted with the appeal which includes Bank Statements, Index II of the land sold and land purchase, source of cash deposit, source of property purchase, computation of Income, copy of 26AS and medical history of Appellant's father and other details shall be considered with due materiality. The Appellant, therefore, prays that the income as mentioned in computation of total income attached shall be considered and addition made in respect of Unexplained Investment u/s.69 r.w.s 115BBE of Rs.49,12,000, unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s 115BBE of Rs.8,00,000 and addition of saving bank interest of Rs. 10,105 (Rs. 18,091 less Rs.7,986) be held as invalid and be deleted in toto. 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing. 3 ITA No.307/PUN/2024 3. The case has been fixed for hearing couple of times in the past on 27.05.2024, 29.07.2024, 28.08.2024, 03.10.2024, 13.11.2024, 21.01.2025 and 24.02.2025 but none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Proper notice for hearing has been sent on the e-mail ID mentioned in Form No. 36 and also through Speed Post. Today also there is no appearance. We therefore proceed to deal with this appeal. 4. Perusal of the records indicate that the impugned order has not been filed by the assessee. This appeal has been filed online and at the place where the order of Ld. CIT(A) is to be uploaded, the assessee has uploaded a recovery letter dated 02.02.2024. Defect notice was also issued to the assessee but there has been no communication from the assessee’s side to clear these defects nor the assessee has taken the pain to appear on the days of hearing in person or through authorized representatives. 5. Under these given circumstances we have no option left except to dismiss the appeal being defective. However the assessee would be at liberty to file afresh appeal in the correct format and uploading requisite details alongwith an application for condonation of delay giving reference of the order of this Tribunal in ITA No. 307/PUN/2024 so that delay in filing the appeal can be condoned. 6. In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed as defective. Order pronounced on this 04th day of April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 4 ITA No.307/PUN/2024 पुणे/ Pune; दििांक / Dated: 04th April, 2025. Neeta 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, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "