RAVINDRA BHAGUJI TAWARE,PUNE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 11(1), PUNE

ITA 515/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ravindra Bhaguji Taware, the appellant, who contested the orders of the Income Tax Officer and the CIT(A)/NFAC regarding various additions made to his income for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The additions included unexplained cash deposits, unexplained investments in immovable property, and long-term capital gains, all of which were assessed under sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without delving into the merits, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found procedural lapses in the handling of the case by the CIT(A) and directed a re-examination of the case on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716989 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattachargee, Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT, CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH SRIVASTVA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUHAS KULKARNI; DELETING
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 271(1)(c); 69; 133(6)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” Ɋायपीठ पुणे मŐ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.515/PUN/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ravindra Bhaguji Taware, A/P-Boriandi, Tal.-Daund – 412202 PAN : AVSPT5921G Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 11(1), Pune अपीलाथŎ / Appellant ŮȑथŎ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Department by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date of hearing : 24-06-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20-08-2025 आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.12.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts & circumstances of the case Id. AO grossly erred in initiating reassessment proceedings U/s 147 of the Act. 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case & in law also Id. AO grossly erred in passing the ex-party order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act 1961 Reliance is strongly place on the following judicial pronouncements. 3. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the notice issued u/s 148 of the I T Act, 1961 is bad in law and being without jurisdiction and Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.515/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 the assessment completed u/s 144 r ws 147 of the IT Act, 1961 is also bad in law and ab-initio void for the reasons that assessment was basically re- open to examine the sale of property made by the assessee in respect og his agriculture land as assessee has not filed any return of income with the conclusion that income of the assessee has escaped assessment. The same may be quashed and set-aide. It is the cardinal principal of taxation that all the receipts are not income and all the income are not taxable income. 4. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 17,00,000/- made by the AO, by treating the said amount as unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, of Rs.17,00,000/- by invoking provision of section 69A rws 115BBE. The assessee prays that this addition of Rs. 17,00,000/-made u/s 69A be deleted. 5. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 33,00,000/- made by the AO, by treating the said amount as unexplained investments in purchase of immovable property of Rs.33,00,000/- by invoking provision of section 69 rws 115BBE. The assessee prays that the addition of Rs. 33,00,000/-made u/s 69 be deleted. 6. Without prejudice to ground nos. 4, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating cash of Rs. 17,00,000/- deposited in to bank account as unexplained and applied tax rate as mentioned in section 115BBE in spite of the fact that the AO has not brought on records any evidences to prove that assessee had earned said income otherwise than from business activities, income from which is chargeable to tax at normal rates. The assessee prays that the income-tax be charged on such income, if any, at normal rate. 7. Without prejudice to ground nos. 5, on facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred confirming action of the Assessing Officer in treating investment of Rs. 33,00,000/- for purchase of immovable property as unexplained investment and applied tax rate as mentioned in section 115BBE in spite of the fact that the AO has not brought on records any evidences to prove that assessee had made said investment as unexplained investments. The assessee prays that the income-lax be charged on such income, if any, at normal rate. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.515/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 8. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,03,12.500/- made by the AO by treating the said amount as long term capital gain. The assessee prays that the addition made of Rs.1,03,12,500/- under the head long term capital gain, be deleted. 9. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,05,25,000/- made by the AO by treating the said amount as long term capital gain. The assessee prays that the addition made of Rs.2,05,25,000/- under the head long term capital gain, be deleted. 10. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in confirming the initiation of Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for concealment of income for the year under consideration. The assessee prays that the penalty initiated, be deleted. 11. On facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in confirming The levy of interest u/s 234A/234B/234C of the Income Tax Act 1961. The assessee prays that the interest u/s 234A/234B/234C of the Income Tax Act 1961, be deleted. 12. During the appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble CIT(A), the assessee has made a detailed written submission in the form of \"Statement of Facts\", which is duly reproduced by the CIT(A) in para-NO. 4 of the appellate order. However, the Hon. CIT(A) has not taken any cognizance of the information, details and records, submitted by the appellant assessee in the said \"Statement of Facts\" and has dismissed the said appeal without discussion and decision on the grounds of appeal on merits. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) be cancelled and relief be given to the appellant assessee by deleting all the additions made by the AO, while passing the assessment order. 13. The On facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred in confirming all the above referred additions made by the Assessing officer and has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, without proper service of notice to the assessee and without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. The assessee stays in rural area where no proper internet facility is available. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) be cancelled and relief be given to the appellant assessee by deleting all the additions made by the AO, while passing the assessment order Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.515/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 14. The assessee reserves the right to add, amend or alter/withdraw any ground/grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. It is a case of assessment framed u/s 144 read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”). From the Insight NMS module priority 1, it was found that during the previous year relevant to AY 2015- 16 the assessee had sold immovable property of Rs. 20625000/- and Rs. 10312500/-, deposited cash of Rs.17,00,000/- in his bank account of Axis Bank Ltd and also purchased immovable property of Rs. 33,00,000/-. However, the capital gain arising out of sale of immovable property was not reflected in his return of income as the assessee was a non-filer for AY 2015-16 and sources of cash deposit and purchase of immovable property remained unexplained. Since the assessee had not filed his return for AY 2011-12, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 29.03.2022 which was duly served upon the assessee. For lack of compliance in response thereto as also to the show cause letter and after obtaining information u/s 133(6) of the Act from the Axis bank, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) completed the assessment ex-parte on total income of Rs.3,59,37,500/- on 30.03.2023 u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act, by making the following additions: (i) Addition of Rs.17,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A r.w.s.115BBE; (ii) Addition of Rs.33,00,000/- on account of Income from unexplained investments u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE; (iii) Addition of Rs.1,03,12,500 and Rs.2,06,25,000/- on account of Income from Long Term Capital Gain. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.515/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC the assessee challenged the ex-parte order of the Ld. AO against the above additions. Though the appeal was filed late by 125 days, the Ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay and decided the appeal ex-parte for non-compliance of notice(s) of hearing. The Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution without himself going into the merits of the case and endorsed the findings of the Ld. AO on account of assessee’s failure to produce any substantial evidence to overturn the decision of the Ld. AO. 5. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that there was no intentional non-compliance of the notice(s) of hearing issued by the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Due to lack of knowledge and proper guidance, the assessee could not comply with the notices. He submitted that the assessee stays in rural area where no proper internet facility is available. There was no proper service of notice to the assessee and the assessee was therefore not provided with proper opportunity to present and substantiate his case before ex-parte dismissal of the appeal of the assessee. The Ld. AR also contended that the Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the detailed submissions made by the assessee in ‘statement of facts’ filed along with the appeal memo dealing with the merits of the case. He submitted that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate its case before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC by furnishing all the requisite supporting documents/ evidence in support of his claim. The Ld. AR, therefore urged that in the interest of justice, the matter may be sent back to the file of Ld. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.515/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication afresh on merits after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. The Ld. DR had no objection to the above proposition of the Ld. AR. 8. We have heard the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the material available on record. We observe that the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) remained un-complied with owing to the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC vide his impugned ex-parte order dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution of the appeal. On merits, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has refrained himself from deciding the grounds of appeal raised before him by the assessee and upheld the decision of the Ld. AO for lack of any substantial evidence produced by the assessee. Before us, the Ld. AR has pleaded that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to file all the requisite details/ supporting documentary evidence in support of his claim. The appellate order reveals that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has applied the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattachargee (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC), decision of the Hon’ble MP High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP) and Delhi Tribunal in CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. No doubt, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC may decide the appeal ex-parte where the assessee does not prosecute his appeal in spite of several opportunities. Nonetheless, he has to adhere to the legislative mandate enshrined in sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act which requires him to state the points for determination, the decision thereof and the reasons for the decision. We observe that the Ld. Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.515/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 CIT(A)/NFAC has passed the impugned order in concurrence of the order of Ld. AO without himself going into the merits of the case. Thus, in our view, his order is in violation of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. 9. On the above facts and in the circumstances of the case, we deem it fit in the interest of justice and fair play to set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication afresh and pass speaking order on merits as per fact and law after allowing one final opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall provide the requisite support in terms of submitting the relevant documents/evidence as may be required/called upon on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext unless required for a sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We direct and order accordingly. 10. In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. Panda) (Astha Chandra) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; िदनांक / Dated : 20th August, 2025/ SGR आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant. 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” बŐच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडŊ फ़ाइल / Guard File. Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No.515/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16 //सȑािपत Ůित// True Copy// आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, वįरʿ िनजी सिचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com "