SHRI SANJAY OMILAL DHAKOLIA ,KAMOTHE, NAVI MUMBAI V. WARD 2, PANVEL, PANVEL

ITA 2057/PUN/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sanjay Omilal Dhakolia against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, which sustained an addition of 26,94,837/- to the assessee's income for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The addition was part of a larger assessment where the assessee's income was initially assessed at 71,40,880/-, following the non-filing of a return and subsequent cash deposit information. The CIT(A) had earlier deleted a larger addition of 42,86,500/-, but the remaining amount was contested. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for a detailed examination of the remaining addition and remanded the matter back to the JAO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837313 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AVIYOGI AMBADKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: CHANDANI RATHOD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.2057/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year : 2013-2014) Sanjay Omilal Dhakolia, Flat No. 502, Sai Srushti CGHS, Plot No.51, Sector-35, Kamothe, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra PAN : AOYPD 1374 A vs. ITO, Ward-2, Panvel (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Chandani Rathod, CA For Revenue : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 13.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2026 ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated 25/06/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which is arising out of assessment order dated 20.09.2021 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised 11 grounds of appeal, which revolves around the addition of ₹ 26,94,837/- sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA.No.2057/PUN./2025 (Sanjay Omilal Dhakolia) 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has all the details to explain that the addition of ₹ 26,94,837/- is uncalled for. He submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has granted partial relief deleting the addition of ₹ 42,86,500/- and directing the Ld.AO to adopt the income admitted in the revised computation of income but error remains in the computation and treatment of given items. He submitted that if an opportunity is granted to furnish all these details before the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), the assessee is hopeful that no addition would remain in the hands of the assessee. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that assessee is an individual and did not file return of income for A.Y. 2013-14. Based on the information about cash deposits, assessee was served with valid notice u/s. 148 of the Act. In response, return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 furnished on 09/02/2021 declaring income of ₹ 1,59,540/-. During the course of assessment proceedings Ld.AO called for various details including the investments in fixed deposits and recurring deposits, purchase and sale of shop, source of credits in the bank account etc. The assessee failed to furnish explanation to the satisfaction of the Ld.AO resulting into the addition of ₹ 69,81,337/- and income being Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA.No.2057/PUN./2025 (Sanjay Omilal Dhakolia) assessed at ₹ 71,40,880/-. Thereafter, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and partly succeeded as the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 42,86,500/- and the remaining addition of ₹ 26,94,837/- was sustained. Learned counsel for the assessee has given the following details contending that the impugned addition deserves to be deleted as there has been overlap with the declared income. Explanation given by the assessee is reproduced below:- 6. Referring to the above details, learned counsel for the assessee has also referred to the supporting annexures filed Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA.No.2057/PUN./2025 (Sanjay Omilal Dhakolia) with these details. Prima-facie case is made out that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to go before the Ld.JAO for the limited purpose of adjudication regarding the addition of ₹ 26,94,837/-. Request made by the learned counsel for the assessee is accepted and issues relating to the impugned addition of ₹ 26,94,837/- as referred above are restricted to the file of Ld.JAO for fresh adjudication to be carried out for the limited purpose of examining the justification of addition of ₹ 26,94,837/-. Needless to mention that Ld. JAO shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then decide the issues in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated above. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19.02.2026 Sd/- Sd/- [ASTHA CHANDRA] [MANISH BORAD] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune, Dated 19th February, 2026 vr/- Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA.No.2057/PUN./2025 (Sanjay Omilal Dhakolia) Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. PCIT concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. By Order //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "