SACHIN BADRINARAYAN SOMANI,PUNE V. ITO WARD , HINGOLI

ITA 2112/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Sachin Badrinarayan Somani against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The additions were related to unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs. 2,32,53,205. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was unaware of the notices and the assessment order due to lack of technological knowledge and non-receipt of physical notices, leading to a significant delay in filing appeals. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and citing relevant Supreme Court judgments, decided to condone the delay and restore the matters to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination and a speaking order.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 822662 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others, Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GANESH B. BUDRUK
• Assessee Lawyers: NEMIN SHAH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Reassessment proceedings; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 147; 144; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \" ीी \" ।येंयपीण प णी या न् IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"B\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 2112 & 2113/PUN/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Rathi Rathi and Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Oppo. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune-411030 Maharashtra PAN-CNCPS2724N Vs. ITO Ward, Hingoli अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by: Shri Nemin Shah Department by: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. CIT Date of hearing: 18-12-2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23-12-2025 आदीश /ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- These appeals at the instance of assessee are directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 25.07.2025 which are arising out of assessment order passed u/s 271(1)(c) dated 14.12.2023 of the Act. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 2112/PUN/2025:- Ground 1: On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITIA) has erred in maintaining penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by Ld. AO. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 2112 & 2113/PUN/2025 Ground 2: On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the Leamed CITIA), ered in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal as the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. Ground 3: On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Lid. CIT(A) bas ermed in maintaining the penalty of Rs. 71,75,281 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by the Ld. Dinegitar of the fact that the specific limb under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act Le concealment of income o furnishing of inaccurate particulars was not specifically mentioned/strack off in the Notice unsder Section 274 of the Act. Ground 4: The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, amend or delete the above grounds of appeal at any time before, or at the time of, hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the learned Appellate Commissioner to decide this appeal according to law. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 2113/PUN/2025:- Ground 1- On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing appeal as the delay was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. Ground 2-On the basis of facts and circumstances and in law, the reassessment proceedings upheld by the Learned CIT(A) against the appellant is time barred and hence ought to be quashed. Ground 3- Without prejudice to Ground 2, the Learned CIT(A), has erred in maintaining the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 2,32,53,205/-as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act The Learned CIT(A) failed to consider and ought to have held that out of total cash deposits, the appellant also made some re-deposits from the surplus cash withdrawn earlier. Thus, the cash re- deposited cannot be treated as unexplained money and therefore the said addition to the extent of re-deposits may be deleted. Ground 4-The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, amend, or delete the above ground of appeal at any time before, or at the time of, hearing of the appeal, to enable the learned Appellant Commissioner to decide this appeal according to law. 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the impugned order passed against the additions made by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) for A.Y. 2013-14 stated that due to non communication about the notice of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A) on account of allowed E-mail Id mentioned in Form No. 35 no compliance could be made. Further there was a delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was not condoned. He therefore prayed for affording one more opportunity to go before Ld. CIT(A). So far as the grounds raised against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same being Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 2112 & 2113/PUN/2025 consequential to the quantum addition may also be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A). 4. On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record’s placed before us. The assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 2113/PUN/2025 is against the addition of Rs. 2,32,53,205/- made by Ld. AO u/s 69A of the Act for unexplained money. ITA No. 2112/PUN/2025 is against the levy of penalty of Rs. 71,75,281/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. We note that the assessee is an individual and in the reassessment proceedings carried out by Ld. AO based on the information about cash deposit in saving bank account with M/s Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Society Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 2,32,53,205/-, the assessee failed to attend the notices on the given dates of hearing issued by Ld. AO. Ld. AO passed a best judgement assessment making addition of Rs. 2,32,53,210/-. Against this addition assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but with a delay of 255 days. The assessee furnished the reasons for delay appearing in Para 2.7 in the impugned order which is re-produced below:- 2.7 In this case the appellant has given the following reason for delay in filing of the appeal: \"1. The Ld. AO issued an Assessment Order dated 26th May 2023 under section 147 read with section 144 for AY 2013-14 making an addition of Rs. 2,32,53,205/- on account of unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The appellant was unaware of the notices/ Assessment Order issued by the Ld. AO on the income tax portal or through emails as he does not have upfront knowledge of technology. 3. Further, the appellant never received physical notices from the Income Tax Department during the course of the assessment proceedings. Due to this, the appellant could not file a response to the notices and explain the nature and source of these cash deposits in the assessment Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 2112 & 2113/PUN/2025 proceedings. Consequently, Ld. AO concluded by best judgment assessment under section 144 of the Act. 4. In these circumstances and on account of this, I was unable to respond to the notices issued by the Learned AO), which led to an unfavorable Assessment Order. Also, I did not receive the Assessment order until October 2023 and hence was unable to file an appeal against the same within the time limit of 30 days. 5. Further, as the case pertains to a very old period, it took substantial time for the appellant to collect bank statements and other relevant data. This led to a delay in filing an appeal before your honour. 6. That there is an unintentional mistake on my part. I humbly request you to kindly condone the delay and accept the appeal.\" 7. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. Consequently Ld. AO in the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act also levied penalty of Rs. 71,75,281/- 8. From perusal of reasons giving rise to delay we observe that the delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) is not intentional and assessee has not granted anything from delaying the appeal. Taking a justice oriented approach and placing reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others(1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) (Supreme Court) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 9. Further since Ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the merits of the case, we hereby restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal against the quantum addition raised in ITA 2113/PUN/2025 to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and to pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Also with regard to ITA No. 2112/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, since we have restored the issue of quantum addition to the file of Ld. CIT(A) the issue of penalty being consequential in nature is also remitted to the Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 2112 & 2113/PUN/2025 file of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No. 2112 & 2113/PUN/2025 are restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 23rd day of December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER प णी/ Pune; ददिेंंक /Dated: 23rd December, 2025. Neeta आदीश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रीधर्ि /Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलेंर्थी /The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी /The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. धवभेंगीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, \"ीी\" ीाच, प णी /DR, ITAT, \"B\" Bench, Pune. 5. गेंर्ा फेंइल /Guard File. आदीशेंि सेंर /BY ORDER, Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, प णी /ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com "