RATILAL DAGADULAL MUTHA,PUNE V. ITO WARD 14(5), PUNE

ITA 1818/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ratilal Dagadulal Mutha, who did not file a return of income for the assessment year 2015-16. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened the case upon discovering a cash deposit of Rs.3.61 crore in the assessee's bank account and issued notices under sections 148 and 142(1) of the IT Act, which were not complied with. The ITO subsequently taxed the unexplained cash credits under section 69A of the IT Act. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a detailed examination on merits, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and proper adjudication as mandated by section 250(6) of the IT Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778752 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH KUMAR SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD S. SHINGTE
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1818/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2015-15 Ratilal Dagadulal Mutha, No.W 181/6A, Gajanana Housing Society, Dound Baramati, Pune- 413801. PAN : ARWPM4183H Vs. ITO, Ward-14(5), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.11.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. There is delay of 180 days 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 hearing Assessee by : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue by : Shri Manishkumar Sinha Date of hearing : 18.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 13.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1818/PUN/2025 2 Ld. DR, we condone the delay of 180 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed the return of income for the year under consideration. Based on the information available that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.3.61 crore in the bank account maintained with Shri Laxmi Co-op. Bank Ltd., the case was reopened by way of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. Statutory notices u/s 142(1) of the IT Act were issued to the assessee to which there was no compliance. Ld. Assessing Officer concluded the proceedings by bringing to tax the cash credits of Rs.3,61,80,100/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal in- limine for non-prosecution, without adjudicating legal & factual grounds. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the record placed before us. During the course of hearing before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee’s case could not be represented effectively before the authorities for the reasons beyond the control of assessee and prayed to grant one more Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1818/PUN/2025 3 opportunity to the assessee by remitting the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Ld. Departmental Representative was fair enough in not opposing the request of the assessee. Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) has held that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an ex-parte order. In view thereof and without dwelling into merits of the issues and considering the submissions of the assessee, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for necessary adjudication. Assessee is at liberty to support legal grounds & adduce evidences in support of the sources of cash deposit. Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC may call for a remand report from Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and after obtaining the comments of the assessee to such remand report, pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the IT Act. Needless to say, the assessee will be given reasonable opportunity of hearing. Assessee is further directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is set-aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1818/PUN/2025 4 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 13th day of October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 13th October, 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 "