SUDAM PANDURANG BELDARE,PUNE V. ITO, WARD-5(3), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 2028/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sudam Pandurang Beldare, the appellant, who contested an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which confirmed an addition of Rs. 40 lakh as undisclosed income for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer due to non-compliance in providing necessary documents to substantiate the source of property purchase. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of participation in previous proceedings due to his limited education and unfamiliarity with information technology, which hindered his ability to respond to notices. Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal decided to set aside the previous order and remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785980 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another vs. 118 ITR 461, M/s. Chemipol Vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHARAT ANDHALE
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2028/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Sudam Pandurang Beldare, Chandrai Niwas Dattanagar, Dattanagar Narhe Road, Ambegaon BK, Pune 411046 Maharashtra PAN : AGRPB1766D Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17 is against the order dated 28.10.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 emanating from Assessment Order dated 28.12.2018 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and the available records. 3. Registry has informed that there is delay of 238 delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay. Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Bharat Andhale Date of hearing : 06.10.2025 Date of pronouncement : 27.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2028/PUN/2025 Sudam Pandurang Beldare 2 4. On perusing the averments made in the Affidavit, we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We note that the delay is not intentional and assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal with a delay. We therefore taking justice oriented approach and taking guidance from the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court 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) condone the delay of 238 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. After hearing the ld. Departmental Representative and perusing the material on record, we observe that the assessee filed the e-return for A.Y. 2016-17 on 12.04.2017 declaring income of Rs.10,22,440/-. Return processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, case selected for Limited Scrutiny for verification of Large cash deposits in savings bank account and assessee has purchased/sold one or more property during the year. Valid statutory notices were served on the assessee to furnish the explanation. Ld. Assessing Officer observed that assessee has purchased property for consideration of Rs.55.00 lakh vide document No.27.82/2015. On being asked the assessee to furnish the source of purchase of property, the assessee submitted that he has taken unsecured loans from three parties amounting to Rs.40.00 lakh. Assessee was asked to furnish the confirmations, PAN, bank statements reflecting the amounts of unsecured loan, Income tax returns, balance sheet, profit and loss account etc. There is no response from the side of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2028/PUN/2025 Sudam Pandurang Beldare 3 assessee. In the event of non-compliance from the side of assessee to furnish the details, ld. AO concluded the assessment proceedings making addition of Rs.40.00 lakh as undisclosed income. Assessee challenged the addition before ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Dissatisfied assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the records placed before us. We observe that assessee has not participated in the appellate proceedings before ld.CIT(A) eventhough ample opportunities were provided to the assessee. Ld.CIT(A) relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another reported in 118 ITR 461 and the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol Vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009 dismissed the appeal for non prosecution and for non furnishing the confirmations of the loan creditors, PAN details, returns, bank statements etc. 7. In the Affidavit filed before this Tribunal, assessee stated that he is not well educated and is not well conversant with the information technology and has not accessed the email and therefore could not respond to the notices issued by the ld.CIT(A). Assessee possess all the requisite details to explain the source of purchase of property. Further, in the statement of facts, assessee is claiming to have taken unsecured loans from three parties through banking channel and has repaid part amount and possess all the requisite details to explain the nature and source of unsecured loans. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2028/PUN/2025 Sudam Pandurang Beldare 4 8. Considering all these aspects, taking pragmatic approach and also in the larger interest of justice, we are of the considered view that assessee deserves to be given one more opportunity. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the case, the issues raised in the instant appeal are remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that in the set aside proceedings, ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing. After considering the submissions/details to be filed by the assessee, ld.CIT(A) shall decide the issues in accordance with law. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is hereby set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 27th day of October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 27th October, 2025. Satish Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2028/PUN/2025 Sudam Pandurang Beldare 5 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 "