NAGAR RAJENDRA NARUTE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(5), PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2481/PUN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Nagar Rajendra Narute, Vs. ITO, Ward-14(5), Pune. Bhigwan S.O., Madanwadi, Pune- 413130. PAN : APVPN5609J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sarang Gudhate Revenue by : Smt. R. N. Brindha Date of hearing : 27.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 28.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.02.2026 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. There is delay of 20 days in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for

2 ITA No.2481/PUN/2026 condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay of 20 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal by not condoning the delay in filing appeal. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, proceedings u/s 148A is initiated and concluded by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) hence proceedings u/s 148A is violating Section 151A. Hence same is bad in law and accordingly subsequent Assessment Proceedings based on such illegal proceedings is also bad in law. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, proceeding initiated by Ld. Assessing Officer is barred by limitation. 4. Entire Assessment was ex parte as initiation is based on Cash Deposit and Fixed deposit made in bank account. Prima facie, it can be seen that Fixed Deposit is out of Cash deposit, hence prima facie escapement was below Rs. 50,00,000/- which is below pecuniary jurisdiction for reopening. Hence the Assessment Proceeding is bad in law. 5. In reassessment proceeding the data which suggest that there is escapement by way of cash deposit and Fixed deposit first come to ascertain in Assessment Order only after issuance of notice u/s 133(6) and which was not there at the time of initiation. Hence initiation is without satisfaction. Hence entire proceedings are bad in law.

3 ITA No.2481/PUN/2026 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. Assessing Officer erred in treating cash deposits of Rs.35,00,500/- as unexplained money u/s 69A. 7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, assessee requests for accepting additional evidences. 8. The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, revise, substitute, delete or alter any/all of the above grounds of appeal if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not furnished his return of income for the year under consideration. On the basis of information available on insight portal that the assessee has made cash deposit of more than Rs.35,00,000/- in his bank accounts and sources of above cash deposit has not been disclosed by filing return of income, 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 11.04.2022 after following the procedure laid down in section 148A(b)/(d) of the IT Act. The assessee neither filed his return in response to above notice nor furnished any reply to the notice issued u/s 142(1) and show cause notices. Therefore, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 22.12.2023 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s.

4 ITA No.2481/PUN/2026 144 of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.36,39,612/- as against no return filed by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.35,00,500/- being unexplained cash deposit in Bank of Maharashtra account u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act and addition of Rs.1,39,112/- being undisclosed interest income. 5. 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 the delay of 361 days, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without admitting the same for adjudication. 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. In this regard, we find that it is the sole request of the counsel 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, the

5 ITA No.2481/PUN/2026 appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay only for which the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not furnishing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. Accordingly, it was prayed by Ld. Counsel of the assessee to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and further requested to direct Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay and decide the appeal. 8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we find force in the above arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause for not furnishing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC within the prescribed time limit and therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits of the case and 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

6 ITA No.2481/PUN/2026 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. 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/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 28th July, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.07.29 11:41:31 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.