ADITYA DEVENDRA JOSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(2), 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 Nos.1615 & 1620/PUN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Aditya Devendra Joshi, Vs. ITO, Ward-13(2), Pune. C- 701, Roseland Residency, Pimple Saudagar, Aundh Camp S.O. Pune City, Pune- 411027. PAN : AFXPJ9940G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Niraj Shah (Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Haladkar Date of hearing 14.07.2026 : Date of pronouncement 15.07.2026 : आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH : These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 21.01.2026 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2015-16 respectively. 2. Since the facts are identical and both the appeals were heard together, therefore, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order.

2 ITA Nos.1615 & 1620/PUN/2026 ITA No.1615/PUN/2026 [Quantum Appeal] : 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in refusing to condone the delay of 175 days in filing the appeal under Section 249 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, thereby rendering the appeal inadmissible under Section 249(3). 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in confirming an addition of Rs. 68,64,500/- made by Ld.AO under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as income from undisclosed sources on account of purchase of immovable property which is unjustified, contrary to evidence on record and therefore bad in law. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in both on facts and in law in confirming an addition of Rs. 8,41,700/- under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the Act made by Ld.AO, being the difference between Stamp Duty Valuation and the Sale Consideration. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in both on facts and in law in failing to rectifying the mistake of Ld.AO while determining the tax liability without giving credit for TDS of Rs. 49,821/- deducted under Section 192 by the employer companies, which is duly reflected in Form 26AS and Form 16. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in both on facts and in law in confirming initiating penalty proceedings by Ld.AO under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of particulars of income, when the entire basis of addition is disputed and without any cogent finding that there was intentional concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in both on facts and in law in confirming initiating penalty under Section 271(1)(b) by Ld.AO for non- compliance with notices issued under Section 142(1), failing to appreciate that the Appellant was genuinely unaware of e- proceedings and had not received physical notices, and that non-compliance was neither deliberate. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing, if need arise.”

3 ITA Nos.1615 & 1620/PUN/2026 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual salaried employee and has not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. Information was obtained that the assessee has purchased an immovable property (Flat) for a consideration of Rs.72,37,222/- and has not furnished his return of income for the year under consideration, therefore, failed to disclose the sources for purchase of above property. Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act after following the procedure u/s 148A(b)/(d) of the IT Act. Notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 12.04.2022, however, the assessee failed to file return in response to above notice. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) and show cause notices respectively were issued to the assessee, which also remained un-complied. Therefore, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 29.01.2024 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.86,73,391/- as against no return filed by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.68,64,500/- being income from undisclosed sources u/s 69 of the IT Act and addition of Rs.5,30,905 + Rs.4,36,286 being income from salary and addition of

4 ITA Nos.1615 & 1620/PUN/2026 Rs.8,41,700/- under the head ‘Income from other sources” u/s 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) of the IT Act being difference in consideration paid and stamp duty value (72,41,700 – 64,00,000). The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act and vide separate order dated 25.06.2024 levied penalty of Rs.24,87,017/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order dated 29.01.2024, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 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 admittedly the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay only & the assessee successfully demonstrated before us that he was prevented by reasonable & sufficient cause in not furnishing the appeal within the prescribed time limit before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Apart from above, it was also the contention of the assessee that the impugned property/ flat was purchased jointly with his wife with bank loan facility from Punjab National Bank Housing Loan,

5 ITA Nos.1615 & 1620/PUN/2026 therefore, the addition was not justified. In this regard, additional evidences in the shape of registered purchase deed of the impugned flat, bank account statement, PNB Housing Loan statement & computation of income showing NIL tax demand were produced before the bench with a request to admit them as additional evidences for adjudicating the appeal. 8. 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 and restore the matter back to his file with a direction to condone the delay & decide the appeal on merits of the case afresh & as per fact & law in the light of additional evidences furnished by the assessee 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, evidences/ additional evidence 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 Nos.1615 & 1620/PUN/2026 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1615/PUN/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.1620/PUN/2026 [Penalty Appeal] : 10. In this appeal, the assessee has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC wherein Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC confirmed the penalty of Rs.24,27,017/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. In this regard, we find that admittedly, before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the appeal was filed belatedly i.e. with the delay of 70 days, and the same has been dismissed on the ground of delay. 11. Since, in the appeal which is against quantum order, we have already restored the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on merits of the case afresh & as per fact & law in the light of additional evidences furnished by the assessee after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, therefore, in this appeal which is against the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is set-aside with direction to condone the delay and decide this appeal upon disposal of the appeal against the quantum order. Needless to say, Ld.

7 ITA Nos.1615 & 1620/PUN/2026 CIT(A)/NFAC shall decide the appeal after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1620/PUN/2026 is also allowed for statistical purposes. 13. To sum up, both the above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are 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 11:21:42 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.