SANTOSH HANUMANT SALKE,KUDALWADI, CHIKHLI V. WARD 9(3), PUNE, AKURDI, PUNE

ITA 3361/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Santosh Hanumant Salke, the appellant, who contested an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2020-21. The dispute arose from an assessment order that included an addition of 5,00,000 to the assessee's income, based on alleged unreported cash payments for property acquisition. The CIT(A) initially dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's non-appearance at the hearings. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on the merits and thus remitted the case back for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831293 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharjeee 118 ITR 461, Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT 62 to 1967 and others, DCIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Infracontract Ltd.
  577 and 1578/Ahd/2024, PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHASHANK OJHA VIRTUAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J.G.BHUMKAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Search and seizure; Opportunity of cross examination
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.3361/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Santosh Hanumant Salke, Gat No.21, Kudal Wadi, Chikhli, Pune 412114 Maharashtra PAN : BRBPS9793R Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2020-21 is directed against the order dated 13.10.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 30.03.2025 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act. 2. Though the assessee has raised as many as 13 grounds of appeal, however, on perusal of the impugned order and the material available on record, it remains an uncontroverted fact that assessee failed to respond to the notices of hearing issued by ld.CIT(A) resulting into passing of exparte order and no adjudication has been carried out by ld.CIT(A) on merits of the case. Ld. counsel for the assessee raised no objection if the issues raised in the instant appeal are remitted back to the file Assessee by : Shri J. G. Bhumkar Revenue by : Shri Shashank Ojha (virtual) Date of hearing : 12.01.2026 Date of pronouncement : 19.01.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3361/PUN/2025 Santosh Hanumant Salke 2 of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Ld. Departmental Representative did not object to the remission of issues. 3. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I note that the assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 on 01.12.2020 declaring income of ₹8,64,710. Based on the information received subsequent to search and seizure action in the case of Mohamad Nayeem Chaudhary Group on 21.12.2023 and also filing of Excel Sheet providing details of payments made by the assessee through cheque for acquiring immovable property and in very same sheet there is information about cash payment of ₹5.00 lakh given for purchase of the property. Assessment proceedings were carried out after validly serving notices u/s.142(1) and 148 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee made submissions that it carries on the business under the sole proprietary concern M/s. Sai Industries and even though he admitted that assessee purchased the immovable property but denied to have made any cash payment to Mohamad Nayeem Chaudhary Group. However, ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the submissions and he had observed that in the very same excel sheet the cheque transactions are also mentioned, therefore, the same cannot be treated as a dumb document and therefore proceeded to make the addition in the hands of assessee at ₹5.00 lakh and assessed income at ₹13,64,710. Assessment has been framed u/s.144 of the Act and there is no information available in the assessment order that the assessee has been provided any opportunity of cross examination prior to making the impugned addition. I further notice that the assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but then on the dates of hearing fixed on 11.06.2025, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3361/PUN/2025 Santosh Hanumant Salke 3 08.07.2025, 24.07.2025 and 29.09.2025 assessee except once making request for adjournment on 11.06.2025 subsequently failed to respond to the notices of hearing. Ld.CIT(A) following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharjeee 118 ITR 461 dismissed the appeal in limine and has not dealt with merits of the case except confirming the addition made by the assessing Officer. 4. Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of Coordinate Bench Delhi in the case of Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA Nos. 1962 to 1967 and others dated 29.01.2025 and another decision of Coordinate Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of DCIT Vs. Mahalaxmi Infracontract Ltd. – ITA Nos. 1577 and 1578/Ahd/2024 order dated 12.03.2025 in support of its contention that impugned addition is uncalled for. I however note that ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of the case as assessee failed to appear and comply with the notices of hearing. I am therefore of the considered opinion that in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties the issues raised in the instant appeal deserves to be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee and after considering the submissions/evidences to be filed by the assessee shall pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.3361/PUN/2025 Santosh Hanumant Salke 4 otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 19th day of January, 2026. Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 19th January, 2026. 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 // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com "