SAMIR JAMIR SHAIKH,AURANGABAD vs. ITO 1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1424/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 July 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not provided the assessee with an adequate opportunity to present submissions on the remand report. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,56,49,879/- as unexplained money based on information regarding cash deposits. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, dismissing the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition without providing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard on the remand report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 16.07.2026Pronounced: 23.07.2026

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/sec 250 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition of unexplained money u/sec69A of the Act by the Assessing Officer.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has filed the return of income for A.Y.2015-16 on 17.10.2016 disclosing a total income of Rs.3,45,350/-. The Assessing Officer(A.O) has received information from the High Risk Transaction CRIU/VRU on insight portal of the department that the assessee has made cash deposits in the M/s. Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. in the F.Y.

2014-15 aggregating to Rs.1,56,49,879/-. The A.O has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act and also notice u/sec 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act are issued to the assessee and there was no response. Whereas, in compliance to the show cause notice issued, the assessee has filed audit report, financial statements, bank statement and nature of business of the assessee and explanation of cash deposits out of business transactions. The A.O has dealt on the information and details and was not satisfied with the explanations and made addition of unexplained money u/sec 69A of the Act and made addition of Rs.1,56,49,879/- and assesseed the total income of Rs.1,59,95,229/- and passed the order u/sec 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 12.05.2023. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). Whereas the CIT(A) has considered grounds of appeal, statements of facts, finding of the AO, submissions and the remand report of the A.O on rejection of the additional documentary evidence filed but the CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the A.O and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

4.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the action of the Assessing Officer and overlooking the facts, submissions and details. Further, the Ld.AR mentioned that CIT(A) has not provided the opportunity to make submissions on the remand report.The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has good case on merits and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate with the material evidences before the lower authorities relied on the factual paper book. Per Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

5.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record.The sole crux of the disputed issue envisaged by the Ld.AR that the CIT(A) has ignored the evidences and documents submitted in the course of hearing and emphasized that the CIT(A) has not provided opportunity to the assessee to file submissions on the remand report of the A.O. The Ld.AR mentioned that the CIT(A) has not considered details and submissions filed and demonstrated the e-Proceedings Response Acknowledgements placed at Page 1 to 5 of the paper book. We find that the assessee has complied with the information in the appellate proceedings. Therefore, We considering the facts, circumstances, submissions and principles of natural justice, shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case with evidences and information. Accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issues to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information. And the grounds of appeal of the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd July, 2026. DIPAK P. RIPOTE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

Pune, Dated:23rd July, 2026 Abhishek Mohan Abhishek Mohan Date: 2026.07.24 10:23:52 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अिीिार्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, “B” बेंच, पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गार्डफ़ाइि / Guard File. 5. ////

आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →