UMA JAGDISH HIREMATH,PUNE V. ITO WARD 3(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 188/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Uma Jagdish Hiremath, who did not file her income tax return for the assessment year 2011-12 despite having significant investments and credit card payments. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened her case under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, issued notices, and completed the assessment under section 144 read with section 147, assessing her income based on unexplained investments. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed her appeal due to a perceived delay in filing. The Tribunal found that the appeal was timely filed and remanded the case back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24652 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND DESAI
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHOR B. PHADKE
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.188/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Uma Jagdish Hiremath, Flat No.1201, “C\" Blue Bird Housing Society, Near Jain Hostel, Dhotre Path, Model Colony, Pune- 411016. PAN : ACBPH4815R Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not furnished his return of income. On the basis of information that the assessee had invested a sum of Rs.1,04,10,000/- in various mutual funds and also paid a sum of Rs.4,69,097/- towards Bank of Baroda Credit Card payment but Assessee by : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 26.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 28.03.2025 ITA No.188/PUN/2025 2 has not filed return of income for the period under consideration, the case was reopened u/s 147 and notices u/s 148 and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. In response to the above notices, the assessee furnished reply wherein it was claimed by the assessee that the investments are made in her name being first holder and the payments were made from her husband’s account i.e. Dr. Jagdish Hiremath (PAN – AAHPH1850N) who is regular tax payer and assessed to income tax for last 30 years. Not being satisfied with the reply of the assessee since documentary evidence was not produced before the Assessing Officer, the assessment was completed on 28.12.2018 u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 on a total income of Rs.1,08,79,097/- as against no return filed by the assessee. The above assessed income includes unexplained investments of Rs.1,08,79,097/-. 3. Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee since there was delay of 26 days in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before the Bench that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by treating the same as filed ITA No.188/PUN/2025 3 belatedly i.e. with the delay of 26 days. Ld. AR submitted before the Bench that the assessment order was passed on 28.12.2018 but the copy of order was manually supplied to him on 28.01.2019 and the appeal was required to be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of order and accordingly the appeal was filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on 22.02.2019. Since the ex-parte assessment order was served manually by hand to the assessee on 28.01.2019, the appeal was required to be filed on or before 27.02.2019 and in instant case the appeal was filed on 22.02.2019 i.e. quite within the time limits prescribed under the Statute. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and further requested to direct Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the appeal on merits of the case. 5. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same. 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the affidavit furnished by the assessee. We find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal due to the reason of delay of 26 days in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It was contended by the assessee that ITA No.188/PUN/2025 4 although the order was passed on 28.12.2018 but the same was manually served on him on 29.01.2019, therefore, according to the assessee the appeal was filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and there is no such delay as alleged by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. In this regard, we find that the assessment order was passed on 28.12.2018 and even if we presume that the assessment order was served on the same day, the appeal was required to be filed on 27.01.2019. However, the same does not appear to be practical since the assessment order was passed manually by ITO, Ward-3(5), Pune. Therefore, it is just not possible to serve the order on the very same day. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the order was served by hand/manually to the assessee on 28.01.2019, since it was not passed online but was passed manually by the Assessing Officer. Since the manual assessment order was served to the assessee on 28.01.2019, the due date for filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC will be on or before 27.02.2019 and in the instant case the assessee has already filed first appeal on 22.02.2019 before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the same appears to be within prescribed time limits. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & remand the matter back to his file with a ITA No.188/PUN/2025 5 direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits of the case as per fact and law 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)/NFAC in this regard and produce documents/evidences in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 28th day of March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 28th March, 2025. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "