SHALAN JAYSINGH KAKADE,PUNE V. ITO, WARD 14(5), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 143/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shalan Jaysingh Kakade, the appellant, contesting the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, and the Income Tax Officer (ITO) Ward 14(5), Pune, regarding the assessment year 2018-19. The appellant faced a high-pitched assessment with significant additions to his income, including a Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 5,31,83,333, which he contested as erroneous. The tribunal noted procedural lapses, including the absence of proper communication and hearing notices to the assessee, who is a senior citizen and not well-educated, leading to the decision to remit the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314364 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GANESH B
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMESH JAIN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \"बी\" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"B\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 143/PUN/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shalan Jaysingh Kakade Maniari Khurd, J K Nivas, Manjari Kolawadi Havali, Pune-412109 Maharashtra PAN-CYLPK1662F Vs ITO Ward 14(5), Pune Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ramesh Jain Revenue by : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Additional CIT Date of hearing : 28.04.2025 Date of pronouncement : 06.05.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal at the assessee is directed against the order of NFAC, Delhi dated 28.05.2024 framed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act and is arising out of order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 25.03.2023. 2. Registry has informed that the instant appeal is barred by limitation of 170 days. Assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit. Ld. DR opposed the request of assessee for condonation of delay. We however on observing that the delay was on account of lack of knowledge about the tax matters, delay was un-intentional, natural and notice that the assessee is not educated and is a Senior Citizen. Therefore considering 2 ITA No. 143/PUN/2025 the reasonable cause and in the larger interest of justice we condone the delay of 170 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CTT (A) erred in confirming the action of re-opening of the assessment proceeding U/s 147 of the income Tax Act 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the Order passed by the learned Assessing officer which, is illegal, bad in law, ultra virus and contrary to the provisions of the law and facts, since the order of the learned DCIT is passed without giving proper opportunity to the assesse of hearing and explaining the case. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the Order passed by the learned DCIT. The same is bad in law as proper service of the notices was not made to the assessee, the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice on various issues as stated herein. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 5,31,83,333/- on account ofLong Term Capital Gain (LTCG) without considering the facts the appellant has merely received a negligible amount out of the said consideration. Thus, the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 19,395/-on account Interest and considering the same as Income From Other Sources. Thus, the learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Order passed by the learned CIT (A) is illegal, bad in law, ultra virus and contrary to the provisions of the law and facts, and the same is passed without application of mind and in violation of the principles of natural justice on various issues as stated hereinabove. The order so confirmed by the learned CIT (A) is without any basis and based on assumption, surmises, whims and suspicion. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in lawthe Hon'ble members are requested to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. 8. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter or to amend any of the ground of appeal mentioned hereinabove. 9. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is independent and without prejudice to each other. 4. At the outset Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that both assessment orders as well as impugned orders are framed ex-parte and there was no communication with the assessee about the dates of hearing fixed by both the authorities. He 3 ITA No. 143/PUN/2025 further submitted that a high pitched assessment has been made making the addition of Rs. 5,31,83,333/- whereas the amount received by the assessee for alleged transaction was only in the capacity of the affirming party and that the assessee received only Rs. 35,00,000/- He therefore referring to the Paper Book requested for setting aside the matter to the file of Learned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). Ld. DR did not oppose to the request of Ld. counsel of the assessee. 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the impugned order as well as the assessment order are ex-parte, assessee is a senior citizen and is not educated. Notice of hearing were not received by the assessee. By referring to the relevant documents in the paper book, Ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that a high pitch assessment has been made and huge addition has been made for the amount not received by the assessee. We therefore in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties remit the issue raised on merits to the file of Ld. JAO for denovo adjudication before whom the assessee shall furnish necessary details for which a reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Finding of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 06th day of May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 4 ITA No. 143/PUN/2025 पुणे / Pune; दििांक / Dated: 06th May, 2025. Neeta आिेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. धवभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, \"बी\" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, \"B\" Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ा फाइल / Guard File. आिेशािुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // वररष्ठ धिजी सधचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune 5 ITA No. 143/PUN/2025 S.No. Details Date Remarks 1. Draft dictated on 28.04.2025 P.S. 2. Draft placed before author 01.05.2025 P.S. 3. Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member 05.05.2025 A.M./J.M. 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member 05.05.2025 A.M./J.M. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS 05.05.2025 P.S. 6. Kept for pronouncement on .05.2025 P.S. 7. Date of uploading of Order .05.2025 P.S. 8. File sent to Bench Clerk .05.2025 P.S. 9. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk .05.2025 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. .05.2025 11. Date of Despatch of order .05.2025 "