SAMPATRAO RAJARAM MANE,SANGOLA V. ITO WARD 2, PANDHARPUR

ITA 1734/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sampatrao Rajaram Mane, who appealed against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment and penalty orders issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Pandharpur. The appeals were directed against the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2015-16, which included an addition of Rs.63,09,760 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The primary contention was the legality of the notice issued under section 148 and the subsequent reassessment, which the assessee argued was based on a precedent set by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee's representation in the hearings and decided to adjudicate the appeals ex parte, relying on the Departmental Representative's arguments and the records presented.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 784372 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT [W.P. No. 1778/2023], Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT [2025, 171 taxmann.com 92 (Del)], National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINOD PAWAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148

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 Nos.1735 and 1734/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sampatrao Rajaram Mane, Achakdani, Achakdani Sangole, Solapur – 413306 Maharashtra PAN : ANUPM5837C Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Pandharpur Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeals at the instance of assessee are directed against the orders dated 16.05.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) which inturn arising out of Assessment Order dated 20.09.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act and Penalty Order dated 16.03.2023 passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act respectively. 2. When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Even on the previous date fixed for hearing on 02.09.2025, there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeals exparte qua assessee with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative. Assessee by : None Respondent by : Shri Vinod Pawar Date of hearing : 29.10.2025 Date of pronouncement : 13.11.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1735 and 1734/PUN/2025 Sampatrao Rajaram Mane 2 3. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the delay of 139 days in filing the appeal ought not be condoned without appreciating that the impugned delay was due to bona fide reasons as duly explained by way of Affidavit furnished before the Id. CIT(A) and therefore, in the absence of any material available on record to controvert the averments made in the affidavit, the delay in filing the appeal ought to have been condoned in the interest of justice. 2] The assessee submits that the notice u/s 148 dated 06.04.2022 issued by the Jurisdictional A.O. i.e. ITO, Ward 2, Pandharpur is illegal in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT [W.P. Np. 1778//2023] and hence, the notice u/s 148 as well as the consequential asst. order u/s 147 ought to have been declared as null and void in law. 3] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 69A of Rs.63,09,760 by taxing the entire credits in the bank account made during the year without appreciating that the appellant was engaged in the business of facilitating online payment of stamp duty for customers under the name 'Rajmata E Seva Kendra' and the credits made in bank account in cash/transfers were received from customers and the same were immediately utilized for making payments towards stamp duty challans after retaining nominal commission of Rs.100 per transaction and therefore, the action of the A.O. in taxing the entire credits as unexplained money u/s 69A was apparently unjustified on facts. 4] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had furnished voluminous documentary evidences running into more than 1000 pages before the CIT(A) which clearly proved the fact that credits to the bank account represented amount received from customers for making payment towards stamp duty challans and therefore, the CIT(A) was apparently unjustified in confirming the addition of Rs.69,09,760 by completely ignoring the relevant documentary evidences furnished by the appellant. 5] Without prejudice to the above grounds, the appellant submits that there was a reasonable cause due to which the notices issued by the A.O. could not be complied with, by the appellant residing in small place of Sangola as explained in the Affidavit and Prayer for Admission of Additional Evidences filed before the CIT(A) and therefore, it is prayed that the matter may please be set aside to the file of the A.O. to conduct asst. afresh after granting one more opportunity of being heard, in the interest of justice. 6] The appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 4. Ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of ld.CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1735 and 1734/PUN/2025 Sampatrao Rajaram Mane 3 5. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. We notice that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income. Assessment for A.Y. 2015-16 framed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act on 20.09.2023 assessed the income at Rs.63,09,760/-. Aggrieved with the addition assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) but with a delay of 139 days. Assessee stated that notice of hearing by ld.CIT(A) were sent on the e-mail id of the Tax Consultant [e-mail] but the assessee was not communicated about the same resulting into delay in filing of the appeal. However, ld.CIT(A) though did not condone the delay but dealt the issues on merits of the case. A perusal of the finding of ld.CIT(A) indicates that there were various details which the assessee was required to file in support of its grounds of appeal but the same were not filed. We also observe that in the grounds of appeal assessee has raised legal issue challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings. However, this issue was never raised before ld.CIT(A). 6. The issue of Tribunal’s power to adjudicate the ground raised before it in second appeal which did not pass through first appeal came for consideration before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT’ [2025, 171 taxmann.com 92 (Del)], wherein their Hon’ble Lordship vide para 13 have categorically held that, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to proceed to decide the ground which did not arise from the impugned order passed by first appellate authority, irrespective of such ground was raised in first appeal or not. 7. Under these given facts and circumstances, since the legal issue has been raised for the first time before this Tribunal which though admitted in light of National Thermal Power Co. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1735 and 1734/PUN/2025 Sampatrao Rajaram Mane 4 Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) but the same deserves to be adjudicated by ld.CIT(A) and similarly on merits of the case also, we deem it appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to file necessary details. Accordingly, the all the issues raised in the instant appeal are restored to the file of ld.CIT(A). Needless to mention that in the set aside proceedings ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. ITA No.1734/PUN/2025 is against the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Since we have already restored the issue on quantum addition to the file of ld. CIT(A) and the penalty being consequential to the addition is also restored to the file of ld. CIT(A). Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 13th day of November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 13th November, 2025. Satish Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1735 and 1734/PUN/2025 Sampatrao Rajaram Mane 5 आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Assessee. 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 "