SANTOSH MARUTI PAWAR,PUNE V. ITO WARD 14(5) PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1311/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Santosh Maruti Pawar, an individual engaged in agricultural activities, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2012-13. The primary contention was the addition of Rs.10,00,000 as unexplained investment in the purchase of agricultural land, along with various penalties under sections 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c), and 271F of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had made these additions and penalties due to the assessee's failure to respond to notices and provide explanations for the investments. The Tribunal noted the assessee's serious health issues, which prevented him from attending to tax matters, and thus condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the funds for the investment came from the sale of another agricultural land, which was not considered by the lower authorities due to the assessee's absence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24662 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 04-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHIR PARAS MUNOT
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1311/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Santosh Maruti Pawar, At Post Gopal Wadi, Daund, Pune- 413801. PAN : BHRPP4140F Vs. ITO, Ward-14(5), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.01.2023 passed by Ld CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The present appeal is filed belatedly. The ld. AR with the help of delay condonation application supported with an affidavit submitted that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for not submitting the appeal in prescribed time limit. It was submitted that the assessee was suffering from Hepatomegaly and undergoing Assessee by : Shir Paras Munot Revenue by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date of hearing : 04.09.2024 Date of pronouncement : 08.10.2024 ITA No.1311/PUN/2024 2 treatment and, therefore, was not in a position to look after all these tax matters. The doctor’s certificate was also produced before us. Considering the medical conditions of the assessee, which is beyond the control of the assessee, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay in filing of this appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact in making addition of Rs.10,00,000/- as unexplained investment to the Returned Income without considering the factual position of the same. 2. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact in levying penalty of Rs.10,000/- under section 271(1)(b). 3. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and in levying penalty of Rs.1,56,560/- under section 271(1)(c). 4. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and in levying penalty of Rs.5,000/- under section 271F. 5. The appellant craves leaves to add or amend any ground of appeal.” 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the agricultural activities. The Department on the basis of information received on NMS data noticed that the assessee has purchased immovable property for a consideration of Rs.50,00,000/-along with 4 persons. The case was selected for reassessment and after obtaining prior approval of the authority, a notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee. Subsequently, notice u/s ITA No.1311/PUN/2024 3 142(1) was also issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer asked the sources of Rs.10,00,000/- invested by the assessee in the purchase of the property . Since the assessee did not respond, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment vide order dated 14.11.2019 u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act & determined taxable income of Rs.10,00,000/-. Against the above assessment order, the assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without discussing the merits of the case. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. The ld. AR submitted before us that the assessee is an agriculturist and sold his agricultural land along with 7 other family members for a total consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/- on 20.07.2010. As per the sale deed furnished in the paper book, the assessee has received Rs.9,67,741/- from the sale of above agricultural land as his share. Copy of bank statement for the financial year 2010-11 is also submitted before the Bench. It was further submitted by ld. AR that the above amount was utilized for purchasing another agricultural land along with 4 other family ITA No.1311/PUN/2024 4 members. Therefore, it was contended before the Bench that from the sale of one agricultural land sufficient amount was received which was invested in purchasing of another agricultural land. There was no other income of the assessee, therefore, the return of income was not furnished by the assessee. It was therefore requested before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and allow the appeal of the assessee. 6. The ld. DR submitted before us that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is correct. It was submitted that proper opportunity was allowed to the assessee, but he did not choose to appear before the first appellate authority. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee may kindly be dismissed. 7. We have heard the ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer made addition on the basis of information that Rs.10,00,000/- was invested in the purchase of agricultural land, but the income tax return was not furnished by the assessee. In the absence of assessee, the Assessing Officer has no option but to add the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investments. In the first appellate proceedings, the ITA No.1311/PUN/2024 5 assessee again remained absent and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution and also without discussing merits of the case. It was the contention of the ld. AR that the assessee was suffering from some serious health issue, due to which he could not attend the proceedings either before the Assessing Officer or before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It is evident that the source of investment of Rs.10,00,000/- for purchase of agricultural land during the financial year 2011-12 was, sale amount of another agricultural land received during the financial year 2010-11. It was the contention of the ld. AR that when proper source is available for investment in agricultural land, the Assessing Officer should not have had made the addition. We find that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution and, therefore, the assessee could not produce the documents in support of the contention that proper source was available with the assessee for making the impugned investments. We, therefore, deem it fit to set-aside the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & remand the matter back to the file of LD CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to pass a fresh order as per facts & law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee so that he can support the ITA No.1311/PUN/2024 6 grounds of appeal & produce the requisite evidences before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee is also directed to comply with the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and produce the relevant documents in support of the grounds of appeal. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 08th day of October, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (G. D. PADMAHSHALI) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 08th October, 2024. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "