RENU PANKAJ RASTOGI,KHARGHAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-4, PANVEL

ITA 3062/PUN/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Renu Rastogi against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which had dismissed her appeal due to a delay in filing. The primary issue in the appeal was the addition of Rs. 22,00,000 to the assessee's income by the AO, which was alleged to be the amount paid for a property purchased in joint names with her husband. The Tribunal considered the circumstances of the delay in filing the appeal, which was attributed to the health issues of the assessee's husband, and found it to be a sufficient reason to condone the delay. On the merits of the case, the Tribunal held that the assessee had provided adequate evidence to substantiate that the amount in question was paid by her husband, and thus, the addition to her income was unjustified.

• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Pune
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAILEE DHOLE; THROUGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SAIPRASAD GHOSH
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.3062/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Renu Pankaj Rastogi, A 1304, Sai Sakshaat, Sector – 6, Plot-9, Kharghar, Raigad, Maharashtra PAN-CHHPR1601L Vs. ITO, Ward-4, Panvel Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Saiprasad Ghosh (through virtual) Revenue by Sailee Dhole, JCIT (through virtual) Date of hearing 23-03-2026 Date of Pronouncement 27-03-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This is an appeal filed by the assessee Renu Rastogi against the Order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act for AY 2018-19 dated 21/11/2025. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under : Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.3062/PUN/2025 Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.3062/PUN/2025 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee on account of Delay of 158 days in filling appeal. The Assessee had submitted that the Assessment Order was passed on 08/02/2024. However, her husband had suffered heart attack on 27/10/2023 , he was operated and advised bed rest. For this reason, there was delay in filling appeal. We are of the opinion that there was sufficient reason for delay and CIT(A) should have condoned the delay. 4. Be it as it may be, in this case Order u/s 148A(d) was passed for AY 2018-19 on 06/04/2022 and Assessing Officer (AO) issued Notice u/s 148 on 07/04/2022. The Notice u/s 148 was issued as the AO had information regarding purchase of immovable property by assessee for Rs.1,42,00,000/-. 5. During the Assessment Proceedings the Assessee filed copy of Sale Deed, copy of Home Loan Account, Bank account statement, TDS Challan. These facts are mentioned in the Assessment Order. 6. The Assessee explained that the impugned flat number 1304, Sai Saakshaat, Kharghar Navi Mumbai, was purchased in the joint name of Renu Rastogi and her husband Pankaj Rastogi. They had obtained Home Loan of Rs.1,20,00,000/- from HDFC. She explained during the Assessment Proceedings that remaining amount of 22,00,000/- was paid by her husband from his Bank Account. Assessee filed copy of bank statement. However, the AO made addition of Rs.22,00,000/- alleging that copy of Return of Income of her husband was not filed and certificate of instalment of HDFC bank was not filed. 7. In this case admittedly the Assessee purchased property in joint name with her husband. She had established that Rs.1,20,00,000/- were taken as Home Loan from HDFC. This fact has not been doubted by AO. Assessee also submitted that Rs.22,00,000/- were paid by her husband from his bank account. She filed bank statement. Once assessee filed bank statement then it was not mandatory for her to file copy of Return of Income of Pankaj Rastogi. If AO had any doubt AO could have initiated appropriate action against Pankaj Rastogi. Therefore, we are of the opinion that Assessee had proved that Rs.22,00,000/- was paid by her Husband, then AO has no jurisdiction to add the amount in the hand of the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.3062/PUN/2025 8. In these facts and circumstances of the case for the above-mentioned reasons we direct the AO to delete the Addition of Rs.22,00,000/- made for AY 2018-19 . 9. Accordingly, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed on merits. 10. Since we have allowed Appeal of the Assessee on merits, we leave the legal ground open unadjudicated. Accordingly appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 27th day of March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (DIPAK RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; दिन ांक / Dated: 27 March, 2026. Neeta आिेश की प्रतितितप अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीि र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभ गीय प्रतितनति, आयकर अपीिीय अतिकरण, \"SMC\" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, \"SMC\" Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ इि / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीिीय अतिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "