SANJAY DATTARAM GURAV,RATNAGIRI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI

ITA 690/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sanjay Dattaram Gurav, the appellant, who contested an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2017-18, which included a significant addition to his income due to unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) assessed his income at Rs. 14,89,490, adding Rs. 14 lakh to his declared income of Rs. 89,490, citing failure to explain the source of these deposits. The appellant's initial appeal to the CIT(A) was unaddressed on merits as he failed to appear or submit written explanations on multiple occasions. The ITAT, referencing a precedent from the Bombay High Court, decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination and a reasoned decision, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and proper adjudication on the merits of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315449 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: INDIRA ADAKIL
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.690/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sanjay Dattaram Gurav, 309 Dalaviwadi, Phansavale, Maharashtra PAN : APZPG6220L Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ratnagiri Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment order dated 29.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act. 2. When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. With the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative, we notice that in the impugned proceeding assessee did not appear inspite of giving three opportunities. However, ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of the case and merely affirmed the order of ld. AO. Appellant by : None Respondent by : Mrs. Indira Adakil Date of hearing : 05.05.2025 Date of pronouncement : 13.05.2025 ITA No.690/PUN/2025 Sanjay Dattaram Gurav 2 3. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee, an individual, passed through proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act and the assessment completed for A.Y. 2017-18 on 29.03.2022. Against the returned income of Rs.89,490/- ld. AO assessed the income of assessee at Rs.14,89,490/-, thereby making addition of Rs.14.00 lakh on account of failure of assessee to explain the cash deposit made during demonetization period in his bank account maintained with Vidarbha Konkan Gramin Bank. 4. Though the assessee challenged the addition before ld.CIT(A) but failed to appear nor could file any written submission on the four dates of hearing fixed on 09.11.2024, 12.11.2024, 07.01.2025 and 15.01.2025. We further observe that ld.CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. We find that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) has held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. 5. We therefore taking liberal approach and also in the larger interest of justice deem fit to restore the issues raised on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and for deciding the issue in accordance with law and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is at liberty to adduce evidences in support of the sources of cash deposit. Ld.CIT(A) may call for a remand report from Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and after obtaining the comments of the assessee to such remand ITA No.690/PUN/2025 Sanjay Dattaram Gurav 3 report, decide in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee will be given reasonable opportunity of hearing. Assessee is directed to provide latest email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is further directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of ld.CIT(A) is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised on merits are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 13th day of May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 13th May, 2025. Satish 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, “SMC” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "