SHIVAJI SOPAN GOTE,PUNE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

ITA 1264/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shivaji Sopan Gote, an individual engaged in real estate development, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, which was initially directed against an assessment order adding Rs. 55,51,875 under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for unexplained investment. The appeal was delayed due to the appellant's medical issues, which the Tribunal found to be a reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal noted the absence of the appellant during the initial proceedings due to health reasons, which prevented him from submitting necessary documents, leading to an ex parte order against him. The Tribunal, considering the principles of substantial justice, decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711957 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHARAD A VAZE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 69C

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1264/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shivaji Sopan Gote, Gote Mala, Sirswadi, Wade Bolhai, Haveli, Pune 412207 Maharashtra PAN : ALTPG9067D Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(4), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 is directed against the order dated 15.02.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 21.12.2017 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. 2. Registry has informed that the appeal before this Tribunal is time barred by limitation by 382 days. Application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as follows : “That the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of real estate development and supply of construction materials under the proprietary concern \"Harihareshwar Developers.\" Appellant by : Shri Sharad A Vaze Respondent by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date of hearing : 14.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 22.07.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1264/PUN/2025 Shivaji Sopan Gote 2 That the assessment for the Assessment Year 2015-16 was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein an addition of 55,51,875/- was made under section. 69C of the Act. The appellant filed an appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, the same was dismissed on the ground of delay and non-attendance for hearing, without admission on merits.. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was received by the appellant on 15/02/2024, and the present appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal has been filed thereafter. There is a delay of 382 days in filing the appeal, for which the appellant seeks condonation. The delay in filing the appeal occurred due to genuine medical reasons. The appellant was suffering from health issues which required regular treatment and medical attention during the relevant period. Owing to his health condition, he was unable to attend to professional and legal matters in a timely manner. The delay was neither intentional nor due to negligence, but purely due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control. The appellant is now in a stable condition and has taken immediate steps to pursue the matter diligently, including obtaining legal assistance. The appellant also humbly submits that he has gathered relevant documentation substantiate his case, including evidence that was not available during the proceedings before the CIT(A), and will be filing a petition under Rule 29 for admission of additional evidence. It is a settled principle of law that substantial justice should not be denied merely on technical grounds, and that procedural delays can be condoned when justified by sufficient cause. PRAYER: In view of the foregoing, the appellant most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to: • Condone the delay in filing the present appeal, • Admit the appeal for hearing on merits; • Allow the submission of additional evidence at the time of hearing. • Allow the submission of evidence regarding delay in filing of an Appeal before the Honourable -ITAT, at the time of hearing. • Pass such other order(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. After hearing both the sides and going through the averments made in the condonation application by the assessee, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1264/PUN/2025 Shivaji Sopan Gote 3 we find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time limit. Having regard to the facts of the instant case, we condone the delay of 382 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication in light of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382). 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for remitting the issues to the file of lower authorities as impugned order is exparte and assessee failed to furnish necessary details owing to his medical issues. Now the assessee is in a position to submit all the details before the authorities. It is therefore prayed that one more opportunity may be granted. 5. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative did not oppose to the request made by ld. Counsel for the assessee. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Assessee is an individual engaged in the business of Developers/supplying of construction material. Income of Rs.10,53,910/- declared in the return filed for the assessment year under consideration on 20.09.2015. Case selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS for verification of Large Investment in Property as compared to total income. Ld. AO noticed that assessee along with others has purchased an immovable property for total consideration of Rs.1.40 crore. Statutory notices were duly served upon the asseseee requiring the assessee to submit the source of investment along with supporting documents and assessee filed his submissions. It is stated that assessee has borrowed loans from relatives and Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1264/PUN/2025 Shivaji Sopan Gote 4 friends. Assessee has filed the confirmation and 7/12 extract etc. However, not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee, ld. AO made addition of Rs.55,51,875/- (being assessee’s share) for unexplained investment u/s.69C of the Act. 7. Assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but no succour has been provided to him on the ground of non-prosecution as the assessee could not submit the bank statements and details/documents to prove the Identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditors. During the course of hearing before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to the medical reasons assessee could not submit the requisite documents before ld.CIT(A) which resulted in passing of exparte order. 8. Under these given facts and circumstances, we in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties restore the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is at liberty to adduce all the required submissions/evidences before ld.CIT(A) to substantiate the source of investment in the property. Assessee is directed to update email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1264/PUN/2025 Shivaji Sopan Gote 5 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 22nd day of July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 22nd July, 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, “B” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "