SHRI CHANDRAKANT PANDHARINATH HAND,PUNE V. ITO WARD-14(4), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1305/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Chandrakant Pandharinath Hande, who appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the assessment made by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer had reopened the case and assessed a higher income than declared by the assessee, adding a commission income of Rs.9,53,539. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the absence of the assessee at the hearing, which was claimed to be due to not receiving subsequent notices after an initial adjournment request citing COVID-19 pandemic disruptions. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately ensured the assessee received the opportunity to present his case, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 778269 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARSHIT BARI
• Assessee Lawyers: B.C. MALAKAR
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 44AD

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1305/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Chandrakant Pandharinath Hande, Handewadi, Haveli, Hadapsar, Pune- 412308. PAN : AJIPH8065R Vs. ITO, Ward-14(3), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Gurugram [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal of Assessee by : Shri B. C. Malakar Revenue by : Shri Harshit Bari Date of hearing : 18.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 08.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1305/PUN/2025 2 the appellant contesting the addition made in the assessment order of Rs.9.53.539/- by the Assessing Officer by passing an ex- parte Appellate Order contending that the appellant did not comply with the notices of hearing for appeal issued on 06/08/2024, 17/12/2024 and 05/03/2025 ignoring and without appreciating the facts that on 27/01/2021 an adjournment was sought before him due to lockdown and closure of the offices for Covid-19 Pandamic and when the AR of the assessee had been quarantined for 21 days and thereafter no notice was received by the assessee, so that the same could be complied. The ex-parte Appellate Order therefore so passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC without allowing due and proper opportunity by serving hearing notices properly being arbitrary, illegal and bad-in-law be quashed/set-aside. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC), Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant contesting the assessed income by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order at Rs.12,76,764/- as against the income declared by the assessee in the Return of Income filed u/s. 148 of the Act on 29/11/2019 declaring total income truly and correctly by the appellant of Rs.3,23,225/- though such income could not be taxed being already covered in the income declared by the assessee u/s. 44AD of the IT Act, 1961. The Appellate Order therefore so passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC being arbitrary, illegal and bad-in-law be quashed/set-aside. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeals Centre (NFAC). Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant contesting the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer on account of commission income of Rs.9.53.539/- ignoring and without appreciating the facts that the assessee appellant had filed Return of Income offering on presumptive basis u/s. 44AD of the IT Act, 1961 and while declaring the income in the Return of Income filed, in the turnover of the assessee appellant such receipt/income had already been considered and disclosed and therefore further addition of the said amount was tantamount to double addition of the said income which is not permitted under the said Act. The Appellate Order therefore so passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC dismissing the appeal of the assessee confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer being arbitrary, illegal and bad-in-law be Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1305/PUN/2025 3 quashed/set-aside and/or the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) be deleted. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete, amend, withdraw, modify, change or substitute any ground or grounds of appeal or to add any new ground or grounds of appeal during or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee claimed to be a commission agent for sale/purchase of lands and having income from commission. The assessee has not filed return of income for the year under consideration. Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. In response to notice u/s 148, the assessee has filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,23,225/- u/s 44AD of the IT Act and claimed refund of Rs.1,20,760/-. According to the Assessing Officer, section 44AD does not apply on commission income. Therefore, the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the IT Act by determining total income of Rs.12,76,760/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.9,53,539/- on account of difference of Rs.12,71,386/- total commission receipt and income of Rs.3,23,225/- already disclosed in the return of income. 4. Aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was preferred before Ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dated Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1305/PUN/2025 4 21.03.2025 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer since the assessee remained absent before him. 5. It is this above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before us that the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before us that in response to initial notices the assessee sought adjournment and did not received the subsequent notices of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR submitted before us that out of total commission receipt, only Rs.3,23,225/- is the income of the assessee and rest of the amount was spent for earning the commission. Ld. AR accordingly prayed to accept the income returned by the assessee and quash the orders passed by both the subordinate authorities. 7. Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1305/PUN/2025 5 8. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that admittedly the assessee requested for adjournment for initial notices of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A). Subsequently, the assessee did not received any notice of hearing which resulted in impugned ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A). Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the appeal afresh as per fact and law and after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) in this regard and produce relevant documents/evidences/submissions, if any, in support of grounds of appeal. Thus, the ground no.1 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Since the ground no.1 is adjudicated and matter is remanded back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the appeal afresh, the rest Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1305/PUN/2025 6 grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are not required to be adjudicated. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 08th day of October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 08th October, 2025. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Gurugram. 4. The Pr.CIT/CIT concerned. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "