REKHA SHEKHAR DHAWALE,AURANGABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

ITA 3311/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rekha Shekhar Dhawale, the appellant, who contested an ex-parte order from the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, which confirmed an addition of Rs.1,31,36,700 as unexplained investment in two properties under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had not filed her return of income for the assessment year 2016-17, and subsequent notices from the Assessing Officer were not complied with, leading to an ex-parte assessment under section 144. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's lack of response due to issues with email communication and granted a final opportunity for her to present her case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839288 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHILPA N C
• Assessee Lawyers: S.K. SETHI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3311/PUN/2025 Assessment year : 2016-17 Rekha Shekhar Dhawale Kasabkheda, Khultabad, Sambhajinagar (Aurangabad) – 431103 Vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad PAN: AXKPD0622J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S.K. Sethi Department by : Smt Shilpa NC, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 19-02-2026 Date of pronouncement : 19-02-2026 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 31.10.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2016-17. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the addition of Rs.1,31,36,700/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on account of unexplained investment in 2 properties. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed her return of income for the year under consideration. Information was Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.3311/PUN/2025 available with the Assessing Officer that the assessee has purchased two immovable properties valued at Rs.65,66,200/- and Rs.65,70,500/- respectively both totaling to Rs.1,31,36,700/-. Since the source of the above two transactions was not declared by filing of the return of income, therefore, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act and thereafter issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 28.02.2023. However, the assessee did not file any return in response to the said notice. The subsequent notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act also remained un-complied with. The Assessing Officer, therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. Since there was no explanation regarding the source of investment made in the above two properties, therefore, he made addition of the same u/s 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. He accordingly assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,31,36,700/-. 4. Since despite number of opportunities granted, there was no response from the side of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the assessee does not have any e-mail ID, she was using the e-mail ID of her son to which the notices were delivered. Since her son also was not verifying the e-mails, the same Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.3311/PUN/2025 remained unnoticed for which there was no compliance from the side of the assessee to the statutory notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. He submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate her case by filing the requisite details. He accordingly submitted that in the interest of justice the assessee should be given one final opportunity to substantiate her case. 7. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that despite number of opportunities granted, there was no response from the side of the assessee, therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC be upheld. 8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that due to non-filing of the return in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act and non-submission of any details explaining the source of investment in purchase of 2 immovable properties, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,31,36,700/- u/s 69 of the Act. We find due to non-submission of any details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC despite number of opportunities granted, he upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate her case by filing the requisite details. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case by Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.3311/PUN/2025 filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to submit the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19th February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 19th February, 2026 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.3311/PUN/2025 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 19.02.2026 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 19.02.2026 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Office Superintendent 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "