SHIVPRASAD KASHINATH DESAI,PUNE V. ITO WARD, KUDAL, SINDHUDURG

ITA 969/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shivprasasd Kashinath Desai, the appellant, who contested additions made to his income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The additions included short-term capital gains and unexplained money amounting to Rs. 49,27,000 and Rs. 7,06,278 respectively. The appellant failed to appear before the Assessing Officer initially, leading to a best judgment assessment. Upon appeal, the CIT(A) rejected additional evidences provided by the appellant on technical grounds without examining their merits. The Tribunal found this rejection unjust and remitted the case back to the Assessing Officer for a thorough re-examination of the additional evidences.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 397966 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH SRIVASTVA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATEEK JHA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Valuation report

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.969/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shivprasasd Kashinath Desai, House No.1358, Kalsewadu Banga, Sawantwadi-416 511, Dist. Sindhudurga, Maharashtra PAN : AJHPD0135H Vs. ITO Ward, Kudal Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 29.03.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of Assessment Order dated 30.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’). 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that even though assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer resulting into best judgment assessment u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act and that the assessee was subjected to addition for short term capital gain and unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act at Rs.49,27,000/- and Rs.7,06,278/- respectively, however, when the assessee filed additional evidences before ld.CIT(A), the same were not admitted by ld.CIT(A) only for want of proper specification of the evidences by the assessee being additional in Appellant by : Shri Prateek Jha Revenue by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date of hearing : 02.06.2025 Date of pronouncement : 03.06.2025 ITA No.969/PUN/2025 Shivprasad Kashinath Desai 2 nature. Assessee has all necessary details to prove that impugned addition is uncalled for. He thus prayed that the issues raised may please be restored to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication. Ld. Departmental Representative was fair enough in not opposing this request. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We notice that the assessee aggrieved with the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the best judgment assessment filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) and furnished following additional documents : “i. Sale Deed dated 30.04.1994 for purchase of land under consideration. ii. Sale Deed dated 23.06.2017 for sale of immovable property for Rs.49,27,000/- iii. Sale Deed dated 03.03.2017 for purchase of residential flat for consideration of Rs. 17,00,000/-. iv. Sathekhat (Agreement) dated 29.12.2015 in respect of the subject property. v. Valuation Report dated 26.04.2022 to determine the Market Value of the property as on 01.04.2001. 4. The above documents were filed by the assessee in support of its claim that impugned additional is uncalled for. However, ld.CIT(A) without dealing with the merits of the case and examining the additional evidences rejected them for minor technical reasons which was not in the interest of justice. Observation of ld.CIT(A) rejecting the assessee’s claim is as under: “The appellant has clearly mentioned in form 53 column 12 that no evidence is being filed. In his submission, the appellant has stated that additional evidence under rule 46A is being introduced without specifying which evidence is additional, what was the reasonable cause for not placing the same before the AO when adequate and reasonable opportunity was provided by the AO and how does it impact the factual findings of the AO? ITA No.969/PUN/2025 Shivprasad Kashinath Desai 3 There is contradiction in statement of the appellant. Considering the fact that adequate opportunity has been provided already and that the conduct of appellant does not warrant re-innings, I find no reason to interfere in the findings of the AO.” 5. Going through the above finding and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it to be a fit case to be remitted back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for denovo assessment to be carried out after due consideration of the documents filed by the assessee before ld.CIT(A) as well as before us. Ld.JAO shall decide the issue in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 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 03rd day of June, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 03rd June, 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. "