PRATAPSINH PRUTHVIRAJ NAIKNIMBALKAR ,SATARA vs. ITO, WD-3 , SATARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1220/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 July 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea that the delay in filing the appeal was due to sufficient cause. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in wholesale distribution of biscuits, did not file an income tax return. The Assessing Officer reopened the case and completed the assessment ex-parte, making additions for cash deposits and other credits. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 670-day delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condonable, and if so, whether the assessment order should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, PUNE

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: CA Narendra Joshi
For Respondent: Smt R.M. Brindha, Addl

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1220/PUN/2026 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pratapsinh Pruthviraj Income Tax Officer, Naiknimbalkar, Ward-3, Satara Vs. Aaisaheb, Saguna Mata Nagar, Mahatpura Peth, Malthan, Phaltan, Phaltan S.O. Phaltan, Satara-415523 Maharashtra PAN-ADSPN3154H अपीलार्थी /Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : CA Narendra Joshi Department by : Smt R.M. Brindha, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 27-07-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27-07-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal and in not condoning the delay of in filing the appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had a reasonable and bona fide cause for the delay, and therefore ought to have condoned the same in the interest of justice 2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the appeal and adjudicated the matter on merits, after considering the submissions placed on record during

2 ITA No.1220/PUN/2026

the hearing, instead of dismissing the appeal without appreciating that the delay had occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the appellant. 3. The Ld. AO did not conduct any enquiry and proceeded to complete the assessment u/s 144 of the Act, without verifying the bank statement of the assessee which clearly indicated payments being made to Parle Biscuits Private Limited amounting to Rs. 66,33,667/- from same bank account was maintained in the name of the appellant entity for relevant assessment year. Thus, the assessment made by Ld. AO be set aside and gross receipt to be considered for the purpose computing income u's 44AD of the Act considering the nature of business of the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating Rs. 41,17,519/- being cash deposits out of business collections as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, while simultaneously accepting Rs. 12,43,020/- received through banking channels as business turnover and applying section 44AD thereon. Having accepted the existence of business and part of the receipts as turnover, the Learned Assessing Officer erred in selectively treating other receipts arising in the same course of business as unexplained. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer without appreciating that the Appellant has consistently deposited cash sale proceeds in the bank account in the ordinary course of business. The cash deposits during the relevant period merely represent realization of trading sales made by the Appellant and follow the same pattern of cash deposits maintained in the earlier assessment year (AY 2017-18). The Le CIT(A) failed to consider this consistent business practice and wrongly treated the deposit as unexplained. The addition so made is therefore unjustified and liable to be deleted. 6. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete, and/or rescind any or all of the grounds of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of the appeal.

3.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of wholesale distribution of Buiscuit and bakery products and has not furnished his original return of income for the period under consideration. On the basis of information available on the income tax Insight portal that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.

3 ITA No.1220/PUN/2026

56,60,539/- in Baramati Sahakari Bank Limited and has not disclosed sources of above cash deposit by filing return of income, the Assessing officer was of the view that the income chargeable to tax to the extent of above has escaped assessment, 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 30.03.2022 after following procedure laid down in section 148A(b)/(d) of the IT Act. Subsequently notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act were issued to the assesse, when assessee did not comply, show cause notice u/s 144 of the IT Act were also issued to the assessee. Since the assessee neither furnished return in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act nor furnished any reply to the above notices, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 27.03.2023 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.ws. 144B of the IT Act by determining income of the assessee at Rs. 42,46,515/- as against no return furnished by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of interest income of Rs. 27,851/-, addition of Rs. 41,17,519/- on account of unexplained cash deposit and addition of Rs. 99,442/- on account of other credit entries and addition of Rs. 1,703/- regarding commission income.

4 ITA No.1220/PUN/2026

4.

Being aggrieved with the above assessment order the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Since the appeal was filed belatedly i.e. with a delay of 670 days, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of delay without admitting the same for adjudication. It is the above order that the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

5.

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) so that the assessee can substantiate the grounds of appeal, since earlier Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal only on the ground of delay for which the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not furnishing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC 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).

6.

Considering the totality of the facts of the case we find some force in the arguments of the counsel of the assessee

5 ITA No.1220/PUN/2026

and accordingly in the interest of justice and without going into the merits of the case we deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and 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 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.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 27th day of July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

6 ITA No.1220/PUN/2026

पुणे /Pune; दिन ांक /Dated: 27th July, 2026. Neeta Digitally signed by Neeta Milind Neeta Milind Shirsath Shirsath Date: 2026.07.28 13:10:52 +05'30' आिेश की प्रतिलिपप अग्रेपिि /Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीि र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. पिभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीिीय अधिकरण, "एस एम सी " बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, "SMC" Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ इि / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

सह यकरजिस्ट्र र/Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीिीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →