VAITHAV ARUN HARNASKAR,PUNE V. PCIT, CIR-5, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1542/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Vaibhav Arun Harnaskar, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding unexplained cash deposits and discrepancies in reported income. The appeal was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance by the assessee. The ITAT found merit in the assessee's request for a re-hearing, citing reasonable cause for the delay and non-compliance, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and reliance on a tax consultant for legal and procedural guidance.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716722 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH SRIVASTVA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD S SHINGTE
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1542/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vaibhav Arun Harnaskar 419, Navi Ali Takai, Bhor, Pune 412206 PAN: ABWPH2195Q Vs. PCIT, Circle 5, Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 29.07.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 17.12.2019 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. 2. Registry has informed that there is delay of 263 days in presenting the instant appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons stating as follows : “For AY 2017-18, the case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS. Learned Assessing Officer has passed order u/s 143(3) dated 17.12.2019 wherein he has made various additions and assessed the income at Rs.2,14,10,520/-/-. Appellant by : Shri Pramod S Shingte Respondent by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date of hearing : 31.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 22.08.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1542/PUN/2025 Vaibhav Arun Harnaskar 2 Against this order, an appeal was preferred before Hon'ble CIT(A) and CIT(A) on 29/07/2024, dismissed the appeal by passing an ex-parte order u/s 250, because of the fact that my tax consultant has failed to make response to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A). Against this order appeal ought to have been filed before 27/09/2024, but same could not be filed because of the following reasons: The reason attributable to this delay is mainly my less knowledge of Income Tax proceedings and reliance on tax consultant who has not guided me properly, in view of this I most humbly pray that the delay may kindly be condoned. The said order was also not received through mail and e-portal was not accessed by me as I was dependent on my tax consultant for all the compliances, and therefore I was not aware of passing of such order which has caused a delay of 263days. In the above circumstance, I most humbly pray before your honors to condone the delay of 263 days and oblige.” 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the affidavit, we are satisfied that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee could not file the appeal within the stipulated time. We therefore condone the delay of 263 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal in light of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme 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). 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of Trading of Wines and various types of chemicals. Return for A.Y. 2017-19 e- filed on 26.10.2017 declaring income of Rs.36,01,650/-. Case selected for scrutiny under CASS for verification of large cash deposits during demonetization period and abnormal increase in sales with decrease in profitability as Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1542/PUN/2025 Vaibhav Arun Harnaskar 3 compared to previous year. Statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) duly served upon the assessee and the assessee made submissions through e-portal. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer observed huge discrepancy in the cash deposits vis-a-vis the SFT statement and the actual cash deposits shown by the assessee. Ld. Assessing Officer vide questionnaire dated 10.09.2019 has sought certain details. There was no compliance from the side of assessee. Eventually, the ld. Assessing Officer made addition for unexplained cash deposit of Rs.1,51,02,500/- made in the bank account held with Sant Sopan Sahakari Bank Ltd. invoking provisions of u/s.68 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. He also made addition of Rs.27,06,366/- on account of lowering of net profit despite increase in turnover. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A). There was no compliance from the side of assessee to the various notices issued by ld.CIT(A) resulting to dismissal of appeal confirming the additions made by ld. Assessing Officer. 6. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the order of ld.CIT(A). 7. Before us. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee failed to appear before ld.CIT(A) for the reasons beyond his control on various dates of hearing which also include certain dates during covid-19 pandemic outbreak prevailed across the country. The assessee is now in a position to submit all the requisite evidences in support of its grounds of appeal. Therefore, a prayer is made to provide Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1542/PUN/2025 Vaibhav Arun Harnaskar 4 one more opportunity by restoring all the issues raised to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. 8. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of ld.CIT(A) but did not raise any objection if the issues are restored to the file of ld.CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before. Admittedly the assessee could not cause any appearance before the First Appellate Authority although sufficient opportunities have been granted, leading to exparte dismissal of the appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances and the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, we in the larger interest of justice, deem it proper to grant one more opportunity to the assessee. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the case, we remit all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Assessee is at liberty to adduce the requisite evidences before ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) may call for remand report and after receiving the objections from the side of assessee then decide the issues in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to update email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1542/PUN/2025 Vaibhav Arun Harnaskar 5 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 22nd day of August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 22nd August, 2025. Satish 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 "