SUCHIT DILIP MANE,SANGALI V. ITO WARD-1, SANGALI

ITA 2601/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Suchit Dilip Mane, who did not file a return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The Income Tax Department issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on substantial cash deposits and withdrawals in Mane's bank account. Despite multiple notices, Mane failed to adequately respond, except to claim that his business of selling and purchasing live poultry birds yielded a net profit of less than 8%. The Assessing Officer (AO) added the unexplained amount of 59,46,520 as income. The CIT(A) dismissed Mane's appeal due to non-response. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837986 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAMOD SHAHAKAR
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1)

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.2601/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year 2018-2019) Suchit Dilip Mane, House No. 11, Shree Sai Lila Bangla, Vitthal Nagar Plot, 100 Feet Road, Sangli-416416, Maharashtra. PAN : ATUPM 8524 E vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sangi (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Pramod Shahakar, JCIT Date of Hearing : 11.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026 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 09/09/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which is arising out of assessment order dated 28.02.2024 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA.No.2601/PUN./2025 (Suchit Dilip Mane) 2. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On the previous date of hearing fixed for 18.12.2025 also, assessee did not respond. We, therefore, proceed to adjudicate the appeal exparte qua assessee with the assistance of Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) and the documents available on record. 3. Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that assessee did not represent before both the lower authorities and it shows that assessee is not interested to pursue the appeal and therefore, the finding of Ld.CIT(A) may please be affirmed. 4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that assessee in an individual and did not file return of income for A.Y. 2018-19. Based on the information about financial transaction of cash deposit of ₹1,59,46,520/- and cash withdrawals of ₹ 6,10,000/- from the bank account of the assessee held with The South Indian Bank Ltd., notice u/s. 148 of the Act has been issued, but assessee did not respond and to the subsequent notice u/s. 142(1) also, assessee failed to appear. However, to the show- cause notice u/s. 144 of the Act assessee responded and stated that he is in the business of selling and purchasing of live poultry birds and the net profit in this line of business is less than 8%. However, assessee failed to establish the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA.No.2601/PUN./2025 (Suchit Dilip Mane) genuineness of the claim of doing the said business. Resultantly, Ld.AO made the addition for unexplained money at ₹ 1,59,46,520/- and assessed the income at the same amount. 5. Thereafter, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) stating in the statement of facts that profit margin is not more than 3% and the income may be computed accordingly. However, when an opportunity of hearing was granted by the Ld.CIT(A), assessee did not respond, resulting into dismissal of appeal. Before this Tribunal also, assessee did not respond. 6. However, considering the fact that assessee has been pleading consistently that he is engaged in the business of live poultry birds and that the alleged receipts are business receipts, we in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, afford one more opportunity to the assessee and restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. 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. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA.No.2601/PUN./2025 (Suchit Dilip Mane) 7. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17.02.2026 Sd/- Sd/- [ASTHA CHANDRA] [MANISH BORAD] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune, Dated 17th February, 2026 vr/- 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 "