BHAGAWAN ICHHARAM NEMADE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1),, NASHIK

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.2772 & 2773/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Bhagawan Ichharam Nemade, Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Plot No.40, Manas Bunglow, Indraprasta Society, Ambad, Mahajan Nagar, Nashik- 422010. PAN : AAHPN3568P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Abhilasha Pawar (Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Vaibhav Madhavrao Dhere (Virtual) Date of hearing 23.07.2026 : Date of pronouncement : 28.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 10.09.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively. 2. Since the facts are identical and involving similar issues in both the above captioned appeals of the assessee, therefore, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order.

2 ITA Nos.2772 & 2773/PUN/2025 3. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2772/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18 for adjudication as the lead case. ITA No.2772/PUN/2025, A.Y. 2017-18 : 4. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax is not justified in levying demand u/s 156 of Rs. 1,23,318/- on the AO was disallowed the deductions and added back in total income without appreciating that the said levy of demand was not justified in law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the assessee had duly explained that under reporting of income in his case was attributable to wrong action of tax consultant and all the material facts relating thereto along with substantiating evidences in form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assessee and therefore, the levy of demand u/s 156 without rebutting the explanation offered by the assessee was not justified in view of provisions of the said Act. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax ought to have appreciated that the bona fides of the explanation offered by assessee were established from the fact that the assessee, being salaried employee from technical background, was totally dependent upon the tax consultant for filing income tax return and therefore, the levy of demand u/s 156 was not justified in view of the explanation offered by the assessee.” 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual salaried employee filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 26.06.2018 by declaring income of Rs.4,57,130/- after claiming deduction of Rs.4,02,560/- under

3 ITA Nos.2772 & 2773/PUN/2025 Chapter VI-A and claiming refund of Rs.69,140/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act for the reason that the assessee has claimed excessive deduction under Chapter VI-A of the IT Act. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee on 05.03.2020. The assessee in response to the above notice furnished his return of income on 12.03.2020 by declaring income of Rs.7,99,320/- after claiming deduction of Rs.1,53,593/- under Chapter VI-A of the IT Act. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) respectively were issued to the assessee. The assessee in response to above notice, submitted that now he has filed the income tax return correctly as per the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 by withdrawing the excess deduction claimed wrongly. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 03.09.2021 completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.10,73,410/- as against the income of Rs.7,99,320/- returned by the assessee by observing as under :- “The assessee, in his ROI in respone to notice u/s 148, has claimed deduction u/s 80c for 1,45,200/-, u/s 80CCC at Rs. 4,800/- and u/s 80TTA at Rs. 3,593 totaling Rs. 1,53,593/- but did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of his claims even when specifically asked to furnish in spite of sufficient opportunity given to him Hence, deduction claims u/s 80C/80CCC/TTA for Rs. 1,53,593 is

4 ITA Nos.2772 & 2773/PUN/2025 disallowed and accordingly income is increased to the tune of Rs. 1,53,593/-. Further the assessee claim loss of Rs. 1,20,492/- under the head house property for interest paid on HBA but did not furnish any documentary evidence in support of his claim even when specifically asked to furnish in spite of sufficient opportunity given to him Hence, claim of loss of Rs. 1,20,492 under the head house property is disallowed and accordingly Rs. 1,20,492 is added to the income of the assessee. Thus the income returned in ROI in response to notice u/s 148 is assessed above mentioned additions and disallowances. The assessee had already received refund of Rs. 69,140/- including interest u/s 244A on original return which is to be withdrawn. As the assessee has underreported / misreported the particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of his income with a view to obtain fraudulent refund in original return as well as in the in ROI in response to notice u/s 148 The penalty proceedings u/s 270A(1) is being initiated separately. The assessment of income is done as per computation sheet and sum payable is determined as per the demand notice.” 6. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the appeal was furnished belatedly i.e. with a delay of 150 days, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by observing as under :- “6. Notwithstanding the above, the appeal was posted for hearing on various dates, the details of which are as follows: S. No. Date of notice Date of Hearing Remarks 1 02.02.2023 09.02.2023 No response 2 17.02.2023 24.02.2023 Submitted response on 28.03.23 3 18.07.2023 24.07.2023 No response 4 10.01.2024 25.01.2024 No response

5 ITA Nos.2772 & 2773/PUN/2025 The appellant did not respond to the many of the above notices of hearing. The case is decided basing on the material available on record. 7. The assessee while filing the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 had reversed the claim of Chapter VIA deduction and restricted the claim to only Rs.1,53,593/-. Even for this also, AO had called for evidences several times during the course of reopened assessment proceedings but the assessee failed to produce the same. Even during the appeal proceedings, the assessee could not produce concrete evidences in support of the claim of 80C to the tune of Rs.1,45,200/-, 80CCC of Rs.4,800/- and 80TTA of 3,593/-. The assessee tried to shift the blame on to some other person. This can be seen only as an attempt to evade the Law. In the absence of the evidences, the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed. As regards the ground of penalty, the same are consequent in nature and cannot be taken up at this stage. 8. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 7. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 8. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that admittedly the assessee in his original return of income has claimed excess deductions of Rs.4,02,560/- under Chapter VI-A resulting in refund of Rs.69,140/-. However, when notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued, the assessee furnished return in response to above notice and reduced the excess deductions claimed earlier and declared income of Rs.7,99,320/- only, after claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A of Rs.1,53,593/- and also claimed deduction on account of loss under the head “Income from house

6 ITA Nos.2772 & 2773/PUN/2025 property” regarding interest paid on house building advance of Rs.1,20,492/-. We also find that the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence in support of his claim regarding deduction u/s 80C of Rs.1,45,200/-, 80CCC of Rs.4,800/- and 80TTA of Rs.3,593/- and also regarding interest on house building advance of Rs.1,20,492/-, either before the Assessing Officer or before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Even before us also, the counsel of the assessee could not produce any supporting documents/evidences with regards to above deductions claimed by the assessee in the return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. However, at the same time, we also find that the first appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay & also for want of prosecution since the assessee could not appear before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 9. Considering the totality of the facts of the case & in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a specific direction to condone the delay & decide the appeal afresh after providing not more than 3 opportunities to the assesse to furnish documentary evidences regarding deduction u/s 80C of Rs.1,45,200/-, 80CCC of

7 ITA Nos.2772 & 2773/PUN/2025 Rs.4,800/- and 80TTA of Rs.3,593/- and regarding loss of Rs.1,20,492/- on account of interest on house building advance claimed in the return of income furnished in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to produce relevant documents, submissions and additional evidences, if any, in support of above deductions claimed in the return of income furnished in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.2772/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18 is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.2773/PUN/2025, A.Y. 2018-19 : 11. Since the facts and issues involved in the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2773/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19 are identical to the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2772/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18 therefore, our decision in ITA No.2772/PUN/2025

8 ITA Nos.2772 & 2773/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2017-18 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2773/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2773/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19 is also allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.2773/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2018-19 is allowed for statistical purposes. 13. To sum up, both the above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes, as indicated above. Order pronounced on this 28th day of July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 28th July, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.07.29 11:04:27 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.