SANDEEP VISHNU REDEKAR,BELAGAVI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, GOKAK

ITA 36/PAN/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Sandeep Vishnu Redekar, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act. The additions pertained to unexplained cash deposits and business income assessed during the demonetisation period in FY 2016-17. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance and non-appearance of the assessee, despite multiple notices. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a fair opportunity to present his case and thus remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838525 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANKET DESHMUKH.
• Assessee Lawyers: SWAPNIL PATIL
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A. No.36/PAN/2026 (A.Y. 2017-18) Sandeep Vishnu Redekar, H.no.103,Daddi,Tal-Hukkeri, Belgavi-591254, Karnataka. Vs . I T O Ward(1), Dr Ghogeri Building, Belgaum Road, Gokak-591307, Karnataka. PAN: AMWPR8609J (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee by Shri.Swapnil Patil.AR Revenue by Shri.Sanket Deshmukh.Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 18.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The appeal is filed by the assesse against the order of ADDL/JCIT(A) passed u/sec 143(3) and u/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition of commission and unexplained money u/sec69A of the Act made by the Assessing Officer. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of dealing with the sale of prepaid charges of mobile to customers. The assesee has filed the return of income for A.Y.2017-2018 on 14.09.2017 disclosing a total income of Rs.2,68,990/- and the case Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA. No.36/PAN/2026 Sandeep Vishnu Redekar.. was selected for limited scrutiny under the CASS and notice u/sec 143(2) and u/sec142(1) of the Act are issued.The Assessing Officer (AO) based on the information from ITBA data analytics NMS found that the assessee has made substantial cash deposits aggregating to Rs.22,65,701/- in the bank account maintained with Bank of Maharashtra during the demonetisation period in the F.Y2016-17. 3.Further the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/sec142(1) of the Act on the assessee to explain the sources of cash deposits made in the bank account and financial statements in respect of business transactions and there was partial compliance by the assessee. Whereas the A.O was not satisfied with the explanations and dealt on the provisions and judicial decisions and made addition of business income of Rs.4,43,633/- and unexplained cash deposits u/sec69A of the Act of Rs.16,23,900/- and assessed the total income of Rs.23,36,520/- and passed the order u/sec 143(3) of the Act dated 21.12.2019. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assesse has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and since there was no compliance by the assessee to notices. Therefore the CIT(A) considering the information on record has confirmed the action of the A.O and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA. No.36/PAN/2026 Sandeep Vishnu Redekar.. by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer overlooking the information of the assessment proceedings and profit margin/commission of the assesse s business. Further the Ld.AR mentioned that the assesse has a good case on merits and shall substantiate with the material evidences and prayed for an opportunity to explain before the lower authorities. Per Contra, the Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 6. Heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no compliance nor appearance in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the notices were issued. Therefore, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assesse is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismissed the appeal ex-parte confirming the action of the assessing officer. The CIT(A) has issued the notices of hearing on 26.12.2020,4.03.2025,23.05.2025 and 1.09.2025 referred at Page 4 Para 4 of the order but there was no response and thus the Ld.CIT(A) came to a conclusion that the assessee is not interested and decided the appeal based on the information available on record. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer and there could be various Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA. No.36/PAN/2026 Sandeep Vishnu Redekar.. reasons for non appearance which cannot be overruled. Therefore, considering the facts, submissions and principles of natural justice, shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case with evidences and information subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Income Tax Department within one month from the date of receipt of the order and produce the proof of payment. Accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on merits and the assesse should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal. And the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 20/02/2026 as per rule 34(5) of the ITAT Rules 1963. Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Panaji Dated: 20/02/2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant, 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA. No.36/PAN/2026 Sandeep Vishnu Redekar.. //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar)ITAT, Panaji Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on PS 2. Draft placed before author PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member PS 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. PS 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order. 11. Dictation Pad is enclosed Printed from counselvise.com "