SAMPTRAO RANGNATH DEOKATE,PUNE V. ITO WARD 14(5), PUNE

ITA 2722/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Samptrao Rangnath Deokate, a 79-year-old agriculturalist, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming an ex-parte assessment order that added Rs. 45,32,442 to his income for the assessment year 2017-18. The addition was made under the suspicion of undisclosed sources of income. The assessee, represented by Shri Deepak S Sasar, argued that due to his unfamiliarity with e-proceedings, he failed to respond to notices during the assessment proceedings, leading to an ex-parte order. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had rejected the assessee's petition for admission of additional evidence without sufficient reason, despite the assessee providing substantial documentation to explain the sources of his income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472338 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MISS. INDIRA R ADKIL
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPAK S SASAR
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2722/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Samptrao Rangnath Deokate, Nirawagaj, Baramati, Pune – 413102. PAN: BISPD2386K V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(5), Pune. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Deepak S Sasar – AR Revenue by Miss. Indira R Adkil – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 27/01/2025 Date of pronouncement 27/01/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tas(Appeals)[NFAC], under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2017-18; dated 22.10.2024; emanating from ex-parte assessment order under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 17.12.2019. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.45,32,442/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ITA No.2722/PUN/2024 [A] 2 BEING INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES FOR AY 2017- 18. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.45,32,442/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT INVOKING SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR AY 2017-18. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE WHILE CONDUCTING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING AND ALSO NOT ALLOWED THE APPLICATION OF ADDITION EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVE LEAVE TO ADD, DELETE, AMEND, ALTER. VARY AND/OR WITHDRAW ALL OR ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. The ld.Authorised Representative for the Assessee submitted that Assessee is 79 year old agriculturalist. During the assessment proceedings, Assessee could not answer the notices, as Assessee is not familiar with e-proceedings. Therefore, inadvertently, Assessee failed to file reply before the Assessing Officer. However, Assessee had filed Return of Income for A.Y.2017-18 on 06.01.2018. Ld.AR further submitted that Assessment Order passed ex-parte making addition of Rs.45,32,442/-. Assessee file appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a prayer to admit additional evidence. Assessee filed additional evidence to explain the source of deposits like Copy of Bank Statements, Copy of Sale Bills, ITA No.2722/PUN/2024 [A] 3 Copy of Affidavit of Mr.DushyantPopatrao Tupe, Copy of 7/12 Extract for the last several years. Ld.AR invited our attention to the page no.64 to 67 of the paper book which were downloaded from Income Tax Portal to demonstrate that Assessee had filed all these details before ld.CIT(A) along with application for admission of additional evidence. Ld.AR submitted that ld.CIT(A) rejected the Assessee’s petition for admission of additional evidence and confirmed the assessment order. Ld.AR submitted that the entire income can be explained by the assessee. Ld.AR took us through the paper book to explain the source of deposits. However, ld.AR pleaded that the case may be set-aside to the ld.CIT(A) with a direction to admit additional evidence. Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR relied on the order of ld.CIT(A) and Assessing Officer. Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records.It is a fact that Assessment Order was passed under section 144 of the Act. Assessing Officer had received information that Assessee had ITA No.2722/PUN/2024 [A] 4 deposited cash of Rs.37,44,987/- in the bank account maintained with Bank of Maharashtra. It is also observed that AO had issued only three notices and then passed the Ex-party Assessment Order. It is also observed that before the ld.CIT(A), Assessee had filed paper book containing more than 100 pages. We have perused the e-Proceedings Acknowledgement Sheets filed by the Assessee in the paper book at page no.64 to 67 and it is noted that Assessee had uploaded elaborate Annexures along with petition for admission of additional evidence. However, ld.CIT(A) has rejected Assessee’s petition for admission of additional evidence on the ground that Assessee failed to prove that there were sufficient reasons for non- filing the details before the Assessing Officer. 4.1 It is a fact that Assessee is a Senior Citizen staying in a village. Ld.AR submitted that Assessee is not well-versed with the e-Proceedings. Ld.AR also submitted that due to these reasons, Assessee could not reply. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we direct ld.CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence and decide the case on merits, after analysing the additional ITA No.2722/PUN/2024 [A] 5 evidence filed. Accordingly, order of the ld.CIT(A) is set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for denovoadjudication. The ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee shall provide necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 27th Jan, 2024/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “एस एम सी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "