RENU SANJAY REKHI,PANVEL- RAIGAD V. DCIT PANVEL, PANVEL

ITA 2377/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Renu Sanjay Rekhi, an individual engaged in the liquor business, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which arose from an assessment order passed under sections 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment included unexplained purchases amounting to Rs. 92,19,085, leading to a revised income assessment of Rs. 92,45,805 for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-prosecution as the assessee failed to substantiate the appeal despite being given opportunities. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a personal hearing via video conference as requested, which contributed to the decision to remit the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788396 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UMESH PHADE
• Assessee Lawyers: KUSHIRAM
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2377/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Renu Sanjay Rekhi, 2nd Floor, Rekhi House, Plot No.1550, Shivaji Road, Panvel-Raigad-410206 Panvel PAN : AEBPR4762D Vs. DCIT, Panvel Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BOARD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 30.09.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of Assessment Order dated 24.05.2021 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the liquor business. Income of Rs.26,720/- declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 furnished on 05.10.2018. Subsequently, based on the information about Tax collected at source appearing in Form No.26AS, it was noticed that the purchases shown therein are Appellant by : Shri Kushiram Jadhwani (Virtual) Respondent by : Shri Umesh Phade Date of hearing : 25.11.2025 Date of pronouncement : 28.11.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2377/PUN/2025 Renu Sanjay Rekhi 2 more than the purchases shown in the profit and loss account. After the case being selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by validly serving statutory notices, ld. Assessing Officer carried out the assessment proceedings and the assessment framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer made addition for unexplained purchases u/s.69C of the Act at Rs.92,19,085/- and assessed the income at Rs.92,45,805/-. 3. Dissatisfied with the addition made by ld. Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) but apart from filing an application for condonation of delay and statement of facts assessee could not furnish any submission in support of its grounds of appeal inspite of being provided sufficient opportunity. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution by observing as under : “6.5 In light of the above, the appellant's failure to respond, furnish evidence, or substantiate their grounds demonstrates a lack of bona fide effort to prosecute the appeal. The appellant's neglect to cooperate and substantiate their case undermines the principles of natural justice and fair adjudication. Accordingly, in the absence of any substantive response or evidence, and considering the appellant's apparent disinterest in pursuing the appeal, the same is deemed devoid of merit and is hereby \"dismissed\".” 4. Before us, during the course of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that despite a specific request for providing personal hearing through video conference, the same was not granted by the First Appellate authority. Therefore, a prayer is made for providing one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish evidence and details to substantiate the grounds of appeal. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2377/PUN/2025 Renu Sanjay Rekhi 3 5. Ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of ld.CIT(A). 6. Under these given facts and circumstances, we in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties deem it appropriate to remit the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication and to pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 28th day of November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 28th November, 2025. Satish Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2377/PUN/2025 Renu Sanjay Rekhi 4 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, “B” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "