RAMESH CHOTURAM SHARMA,RAIGAD V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 550/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ramesh Choturam Sharma, the appellant, who contested an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2017-18. The dispute arose from an assessment order under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to non-compliance and failure to explain the source of a substantial cash deposit during the demonetization period. The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of access to electronic communications and the absence of speed post notices, which contributed to his non-compliance. The Tribunal considered the circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic, and decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A) for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315446 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: INDIRA ADAKIL
• Assessee Lawyers: CHINTAN MEHTA
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.550/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ramesh Choturam Sharma, 1, Maruti Ali, Revdanda, Alibad 402202 Maharashtra PAN : BKVPS7475P Vs. ITO, Ward-3, Panvel Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 26.12.2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment order dated 03.10.2019 passed u/s.144 of the Act. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the assessee is residing in a village, neither e-mails could be accessed for the notices sent by ld.CIT(A)/NFAC through ITBA portal nor any notice was sent through speed post. It was also submitted that assessee could not place any evidence to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs.23,66,720/- for which ld. AO made addition u/s.69A of Appellant by : Shri Chintan Mehta (through virtual Respondent by : Mrs. Indira Adakil Date of hearing : 05.05.2025 Date of pronouncement : 13.05.2025 ITA No.550/PUN/2025 Ramesh Choturam Sharma 2 the Act. Therefore, a prayer is made for remitting back the issues on remit to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication to which ld. Departmental Representative did not oppose. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessee is an individual and did not file return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Act. Based on the information about the cash deposit of Rs.22,88,000/- during the demonetization period in the old currency in the bank account held by the assessee, case selected for scrutiny, however assessee failed to make any compliance resulting into best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act making couple of additions and assessed the income at Rs.23,66,720/-. Before ld.CIT(A), assessee challenged the addition and stated that he is a labour contractor and has meagre income of Rs.48,934/- and no tax liability. However, assessee failed to make any submission about the source of alleged cash deposit in the bank account held in his name. We also observe that few notices of hearing issued by ld.CIT(A) were during covid-19 pandemic period prevailed across the country at that point of time and for the remaining except once assessee could not appear. We therefore considering the facts and circumstance of the case and in the larger interest of justice deem it proper to restore the issues to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Assessee is directed to provide latest email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for ITA No.550/PUN/2025 Ramesh Choturam Sharma 3 reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 13th day of May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 13th May, 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, “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. "