BALASAHEB DAGU JEUGHAL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1185/PUN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Balasaheb Dagu Jeughal, Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3) Nashik. 192B Khedgaon, Nashik Dindori Road, Dindori, Nashik- 422205. PAN : AJUPJ2320F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None : Shri Arvind Renge (Virtual) Revenue by Date of hearing : 10.06.2026 Date of pronouncement : 20.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.05.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. There is delay in filing of the present appeal. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal, since the assessee is an agriculturist and seems to be unaware with

2 ITA No.1185/PUN/2026 the technology which resulted in delayed filing of the present appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, lower authorities erred in passing ex-parte order and erred in deciding the issue only on the basis of material available with them, this action is being violative of principal of natural justice. Your appellant prays for granting opportunity of hearing before lower authorities. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, following grounds are also taken on merit, 2. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the AO has erred in making addition of Rs.21,28,000/- on account of alleged unexplained cash deposit in the bank account of the appellant, without appreciating the fact that appellant is an agriculturist and holds agricultural land, and given an opportunity appellant is in position to explain the nature and sources of cash deposits. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant craves for to add, alter amend, modify, delete any or all grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing in the interest of principle of natural justice.” 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 that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.21,28,000/- in his bank account maintained with UCO Bank, however, return of income has not been filed, therefore, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income of

3 ITA No.1185/PUN/2026 Rs.21,28,000/- has escaped assessment & 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 29.03.2019. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act and show cause notice u/s 144 of the IT Act respectively were issued to the assessee. The assessee neither furnished return in response to notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act nor furnished any reply to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 14.12.2019 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.21,28,000/- as against no return filed by the assessee. 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. When the appeal was called for hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee, however, an application for adjournment was filed. Since in the adjournment application, the

4 ITA No.1185/PUN/2026 assessee has not mentioned any specific reason for adjourning the case, the adjournment application is hereby rejected and we proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record as well as after hearing Ld. DR. 8. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. In the grounds of appeal, 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. 9. 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

5 ITA No.1185/PUN/2026 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. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 20th day of July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 20th July, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.07.22 11:58:01 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.