SWATI BHASKAR PALANDE,CHINCHWAD, PUNE vs. WARD 9(3), PUNE, AKURDI, PUNE

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 No.2264/PUN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Swati Bhaskar Palande, Vs. Assessment Unit, Income 103, Gold Croft, Opp. Tax Department. Hindustan Bakery, Nr. Janata Sahakari Bank, Chinchwad Gaon, Pune- 411033. PAN : ATYPP1864C Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri J. G. Bhumkar : 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: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.12.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the

2 ITA No.2264/PUN/2026 applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1) Learned CIT (A) erred both on facts and law in passing the impugned order. 2) Appellant herein Mrs. Swati Bhaskar Palande was owning a residential flat in joint ownership with her husband Shri Bhaskar Palande. They sold said flat on dt. 07.11.2014 for total consideration of Rs. 37,00,000/- and purchased another new residential flat on dt. 29.10.2014 for Rs. 63,70,940/- with joint ownership. 3) Appellant hereby submit that amount of Rs. 26,70,940/- was paid by her husband, Shri Bhaskar Palande out of his income & loan from HDFC Bank. 4) Ld. CIT (A) did not consider this fact and treated entire amount of difference of Rs.26,70,940/- as unexplained investment of appellant. 5) Appellant’s husband Shri Bhaskar Palande has been doing job in out of India (i.e in Australia) since last more than twelve years. 6) Appellant hereby submit that she should be given an opportunity to submit documentary evidence of amount sent by her husband. 7) Appellant could not collect required documents within due time because it was difficult for her to contact to her husband and explain him about exactly what was needed. Now, she has gathered all documents and she is very politely requesting for one more opportunity to present her say. 8) Appellant may be given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. 9) The appellant urges to add, alter, amend and / or supplement submission made herein above. 10) In view of the submission made herein above, the appellant pray:

3 ITA No.2264/PUN/2026 i) The impugned order in original dated 30/12/2025 passed by A.O. be set aside. ii) Opportunity to submit documents about fund transferred by appellant’s husband be given to appellant. iii) For such other relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may require.” 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not furnished her return of income for the year under consideration. On the basis of information available on insight portal that the assessee has purchased immovable property and has not disclosed its sources by filing return of income, therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act and notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 05.04.2022 after following the procedure prescribed u/s 148A(b)/(d) of the IT Act. The assessee in response to above notice filed her return of income on 20.08.2022 declaring long term capital gain of Rs.6,78,912/- after claiming deduction u/s 54 of the IT Act and resultant income was shown at Rs.36,420/-. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT Act and show cause notice respectively were issued to the assessee. Since the assessee did not file any reply to the above show cause notice, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 09.12.2024 completed the assessment

4 ITA No.2264/PUN/2026 proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.27,07,360/- as against income of Rs.36,420/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.26,70,940/- (37,00,000 – 63,70,940) being unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act. 5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that it is the sole request of the assessee that the matter may kindly be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC so that the assessee can substantiate the grounds of appeal, since earlier, due to unavoidable circumstances, the assessee could not appear before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on the dates of hearing and therefore the order was passed ex-parte by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It was also submitted by Ld. Counsel of the

5 ITA No.2264/PUN/2026 assessee that the new residential flat was purchased by the assessee jointly with her husband and an amount of Rs.31,85,470/- was invested by Shri Bhaskar Palande, husband of the assessee, who is serving abroad since last 12 years and the amount was sent by him from abroad. It was therefore, prayed that the investment in flat was from known and proved sources, hence no addition was required. 8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case & in the interest of justice & without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate 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 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 to produce relevant documents, submissions and additional evidences, if any, 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 orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6 ITA No.2264/PUN/2026 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 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 11:23:20 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.