VINAYAK BAHIRU MEDGE,NASHIK V. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

ITA 569/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Vinayak Bahiru Medge, who did not file his income tax return for the assessment year 2015-16. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) noted unexplained cash deposits of Rs.37,14,640 in the assessee's bank account and an unexplained purchase of immovable property worth Rs.34.00 lakh. Due to non-compliance with multiple notices, the ITO completed the assessment under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, assessing the total income at Rs.71,14,640. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution as the assessee failed to comply with the notices. The Tribunal found that the notices were sent to an old email address and, considering the circumstances, decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705818 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANKET JOSHI

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण \"B\" \u0001यायपीठ पुणे म\b । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"B\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.569/PUN/2025 िनधा\u0005रण वष\u0005 / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vinayak Bahiru Medge, 2, Gannayak Apartment, Gulmohar Colony, Anand Nagar, Behind Muktidham, Nashik Road, Nashik – 422101 Maharashtra PAN : AMQPM6176K Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Nashik Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Sanket Joshi Department by Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date of hearing 30.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.12.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“CIT(A)”] relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex parte order of the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee and thereby sustaining the additions made by Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.71,14,640/-. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income. Information was received that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs.37,14,640/- in the bank account maintained by him. Since the assessee has not filed his return of income, the Assessing officer issued a show cause notice asking the assessee to furnish ITA No.569/PUN/2025 Vinayak Bahiru Medge 2 his reply. Since there was no compliance from the side of the assessee a notice u/s.148A(d) of the Act was issued which remained uncomplied with. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s.148 of the Act. Despite number of opportunities granted, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee for which the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment u/s.144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since the assessee during the year has made cash deposit of Rs.37,14,640/- for which no explanation has been given to substantiate the source of such income and since the assessee has purchased an immovable property amounting to Rs.34.00 lakh, the source of which remained unexplained, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.71,14,640/-. 4. In the appeal filed before ld.CIT(A)/NFAC also, there was no compliance from the side of the assessee despite number of opportunities granted. The ld.CIT(A)/NFAC therefore dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 4.1 Aggrieved with such order of the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that notices of hearing issued by the office of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC went to the old e-mail id of the assessee although new e-mail id was given in Form No.35. Further, ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. He accordingly submitted that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details. 6. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand submitted that the assessee neither appeared before the Assessing Officer nor appeared before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and therefore in the absence of any explanation given by the assessee to substantiate the source for cash deposit in the bank account and purchase of the immovable property, the order of the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC should be upheld. ITA No.569/PUN/2025 Vinayak Bahiru Medge 3 7. We have heard the rival contentions made by both the sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-compliance from the side of the assessee to the various statutory notices, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.71,14,640/-. It is also an admitted fact that due to non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by the office of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC he dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. It is the submission of Ld. Counsel that the notices issued by the office of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC went to the wrong e-mail id instead of the e-mail id given in Form No.35 for which there was no compliance from the side of the assessee. It is also his submission that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the appeal as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before ld.CIT(A)/NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the appeal are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th June, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे/Pune; \u0005दनांक /Dated : 30th June, 2025 ITA No.569/PUN/2025 Vinayak Bahiru Medge 4 आदेश क ितिलिप अ\u0010ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ\u000f /Appellant 2. \u0010\u0011यथ\u000f /Respondent 3. The CIT (Exemption), Pune. 4. िवभागीय \u0010ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब\u0015च, पुणे/DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0005 फाइल/Guard File आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER //True Copy// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune "