VIKAS RAOSAHEB POWAR ,SHIROL, MAHARASHTRA V. ITO, WARD-1, ICHALKARANJI, ICHALKARANJI, MAHARASHTRA

ITA 2127/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Vikas Raosaheb Powar, who did not file his income tax return for the assessment year 2018-19 despite significant withdrawals from his bank accounts, which were suspected to be unreported income. The Assessing Officer issued notices under sections 148A(b), 148, and 142(1) of the IT Act, but the assessee did not respond adequately, leading to an ex-parte assessment of his income at Rs.1,22,65,840. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal due to non-appearance of the assessee, which was attributed to communication failures by his erstwhile consultant. The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard and thus set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24624 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND DESAI
• Assessee Lawyers: BHUVANESH KANKANI; LD. A NFAC
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2127/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Vikas Raosaheb Powar, Powar Doodh Dairy Terwad, Shirol, Kolhapur- 416106. PAN : BCWPP6212J Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ichalkaranji, Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. There is a delay of 103 days in filing of the present appeal. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. We are satisfied with the explanation of the assessee that he was prevented by reasonable cause for not filing the present appeal within prescribed time limit. Ld. DR raised Assessee by : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of hearing : 08.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 28.03.2025 ITA No.2127/PUN/2024 2 no serious objection to the condonation request made by the assessee. Accordingly, the delay of 103 days is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for assessment year 2018-19. The Department was having information that the assessee has withdrawn Rs.1,22,65,840/- from his bank accounts but the income corresponding to the above financial transaction has not been reported by the assessee. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer was of the view that substantial income has escaped assessment and accordingly notice u/s 148A(b) of the IT Act was issued to the assessee providing an opportunity to the assessee to submit explanation as to why a notice u/s 148 should not be issued on the basis of above financial transaction which suggests that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the period under consideration. Since the assessee has not responded against the above notice issued u/s 148A(b), notices u/s 148 and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. The assessee did not filed return of income in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act. However, the assessee furnished response against one of the notice that ITA No.2127/PUN/2024 3 transaction pertains to agricultural income, therefore return is not filed. Since the assessee has not furnished any documentary evidence in support of above reply, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act on a total income of Rs.1,22,65,840/-. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 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 ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before the Bench that only two notices of hearing were issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, first notice was issued on 09.04.2024 and second & final notice was issued on 16.04.2024. Ld. AR further submitted that the notices were sent on email ID of erstwhile consultant who did not informed to the assessee about the above dates of hearing and due to this reason the assessee could not furnish any reply before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC which consequently resulted in passing of ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. In the original grounds of appeal along with other grounds, the assessee has requested to set-aside the ex-parte order ITA No.2127/PUN/2024 4 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Apart from original grounds of appeal, the assessee has also filed an application for admission of additional ground of appeal, which is legal in nature, wherein the assessee has challenged that the assessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the IT Act may kindly be held invalid since the requisite approval/sanction u/s 151(2) is not obtained from the proper authority. Accordingly, Ld. AR prayed before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by Assessing Officer and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 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 paper books furnished by the assessee along with written submissions. It was the main prayer of the assessee that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has decided the appeal ex-parte i.e. without hearing the appellant and therefore one opportunity may kindly be provided to the assessee to substantiate the grounds of appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. In this regard, we find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has issued only two notices of hearing ITA No.2127/PUN/2024 5 in a short span of 7 days time. Both the above notices were issued on the email ID of [e-mail] and it was contended that this email ID does not belong to the assessee but pertains to erstwhile consultant of the assessee. The assessee in his affidavit has stated this fact that erstwhile consultant has not informed to the assessee about the notices of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we find force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that proper opportunity of hearing was not provided to the assessee by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and it would be in the interest of justice, if the assessee is allowed one opportunity to produce supporting documents/evidences/explanation in support of grounds of appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Accordingly, without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the mater back to him with a direction to decide the appeal afresh as per fact & 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/explanation in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any ITA No.2127/PUN/2024 6 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. Since the matter has been set-aside to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the appeal afresh, therefore, with regard to the additional ground raised before us, the assessee is given liberty to raise the same before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, if he so wishes. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28th day of March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 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. "