FATEH SINGH HORA ,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(1), PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1018/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Fateh Singh Hora, Vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Pune. Flat No.7A, Cycle Merchant Co-Op. Housing Society, Quarter Gate, Pune- 411011. PAN : ABSPH0186R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sachin P. Kumar Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Haladkar Date of hearing 14.07.2026 : Date of pronouncement 15.07.2026 : आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.10.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. There is delay of 112 days 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 applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the

2 ITA No.1018/PUN/2025 appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay of 112 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC is arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to law and is opposed to the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play. 2. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principles of "audi alteram partem." 3. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 without application of mind and without observing the principles of natural justice. 4. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 1,11,20,000/- on account of unexplained investment without appreciating the correct facts in regard to the same. 5. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the submissions made and documentary evidences submitted against the additions made by the Ld. AO. 6. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT . (A), NFAC has erred in passing the order u/s 250 which is non speaking order and without highlighting the reasoning for confirming the addition of Rs. 1,11,20,000/- made by the Ld. AO. 7. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.1,11,20,000/- on account of unexplained investment without appreciating the remand report submitted by the Ld. AO and without going into the merits of the case.

3 ITA No.1018/PUN/2025 8. That, the appellant may kindly be allowed to add, alter or modify any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing. 9. That, the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 10. Any other order in the interest of justice may kindly be passed.” 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged as a commission agent and has filed his return of income on 19.08.2016 declaring income of Rs.6,47,230/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the IT Act respectively were issued to the assessee. After considering the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 22.12.2017 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the IT Act by determining income of Rs.1,47,67,230/- as against income of Rs.6,47,230/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.1,41,20,000/- being unexplained cash deposit in banks. 5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed the appeal and deleted addition of Rs.30,00,000/- since the assessee successfully explained the

4 ITA No.1018/PUN/2025 sources of cash deposit of Rs.30,00,000/- and confirmed the remaining addition of Rs.1,11,20,000/- made by the Assessing Officer. 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 contention of the assessee that although Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer, however, he failed to consider the same in totality. Accordingly, it was the sole request of Ld. counsel of the assessee that the matter may kindly be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to consider the remand report in full, sent by the Assessing Officer and then decide the appeal after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In this regard, it was pointed out by Ld. Counsel of the assessee that with regard to receipt of cash of Rs.20,00,000/- + Rs.5,00,000/- from Shri Chidanand Waghmare, the Assessing Officer commented that during remand proceedings, Shri Chidanand Waghmare attended and confirmed the transactions, however, Ld.

5 ITA No.1018/PUN/2025 CIT(A)/NFAC failed to consider the comments made by the Assessing Officer. Likewise, with regard to other transactions also, the Assessing Officer commented to decide the issue on merit after admitting the additional evidences furnished by the assessee, however, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not considered the observations made by the Assessing Officer. 8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and 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 to the limited extent of addition of Rs.1,11,20,000/- and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to decide the issue of disputes after considering the remand report in full and 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.

6 ITA No.1018/PUN/2025 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 15th day of July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 15th July, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.07.16 11:42:26 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, “A” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.