MRS NALINI BABAN TADGE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), PUNE, PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2513/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mrs. Nalini Baban Tadge, Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Pune. 9, Gautam Apartment, 569/B-6, Shivajinagar, Pune- 411005. PAN : ACCPT1898D Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri M. R. Bhagwat : Revenue by : Shri Umesh Phade Date of hearing : 12.05.2026 Date of pronouncement : 13.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.10.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1) The reassessment is invalid being contrary to the provisions of section 151A of the Income Tax Act.

2 ITA No.2513/PUN/2025 2) The reassessment is invalid because the assessing officer issued the notice under section 148 dated 21/07/2022 without a Document Identification Number(DIN). 3) The reassessment is without jurisdiction and void ab-initio since there was no escapement of income chargeable to tax in assessee's original return where she had disclosed both income from and investment in NSEL. 4) The learned CITA, NFAC, DELHI erred in sustaining an addition of Rs.76,53,589/- when the concerned amount was an investment and not income and the investment was properly reflected in the assessee's audited books of accounts. 5) The learned CITA, NFAC, DELHI while sustaining the addition failed to appreciate and consider the cogent evidence produced by the tax payer. 6) The reassessment may be cancelled. 7) The addition of Rs 76,53,589/- be deleted and tax payer's income be reduced to that extent. 8) Such other orders be passed as deemed fit and proper. 9) The appellant prays for leave to add to, modify or revise her grounds of appeal and lead evidence.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and senior citizen deriving income from rent, investments and trading in commodity derivatives on the National Stock Exchange Limited (NSEL) through an accredited broker JADE Commodities Private Limited and the return of income was furnished on 02.12.2014 declaring an income of Rs.3,32,871/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act on the basis of an information that an amount of Rs.78,28,075/- was appearing in the name of the assessee under the head “original

3 ITA No.2513/PUN/2025 outstanding amount as receivable on NSEL platform”. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 21.07.2022 and in response to above notice the assessee furnished return on 01.05.2023 by declaring income of Rs.3,32,871/-. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1), 143(2) and show cause notice u/s 144 of the IT Act respectively were issued to the assessee. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 29.05.2023 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining the income of Rs.79,86,460/- as against the income of Rs.3,32,871/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.76,53,589/- being unexplained credit u/s 68 of the IT Act. 4. 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 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

4 ITA No.2513/PUN/2025 6. 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 counsel of the assessee that the assessee is a regular income tax payee and has disclosed income arising from NSEL and also disclosed the receivable of Rs.76,53,589/- from JADE Commodities Private Limited in her balance sheet as sundry debtors which was attached along with return of income and copy of the same is also produced before the Bench in paper book page no.7. It was also the contention of the assessee that in September 2016, the ITO, Ward-14(1), Pune issued notice u/s 133(6) of the IT Act to the assessee to provide the details of transactions done during assessment year 2014-15 by the assessee with JADE Commodities Private Limited and the assessee in compliance to the above 133(6) notice provided all the relevant and desired information before the Assessing Officer which includes copy of return, computation of income, balance sheet etc. for assessment years 2014-15 and 2013-14. It was also the contention of the assessee that in the balance for assessment year 2013-14 and for assessment year 2014-15, the amount receivable from JADE

5 ITA No.2513/PUN/2025 Commodities Private Limited was duly disclosed, therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has not reflected above transactions in her books of accounts. It was also the contention of the assessee that in response to enquiry initiated by the Addl. Director (Inv.) Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Mumbai, the assessee furnished his response along with copy of bank statements for the relevant period. However, we find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has disbelieved the contention of the assessee merely on the basis of the fact that the assessee has neither furnished sale deed of the impugned agricultural land nor furnished any confirmation from JADE Commodities Private Limited regarding the amount of Rs.76,53,589/- receivable by the assessee. We further find that in the balance sheet of assessment year 2013-14, the assessee herself wrote sundry creditors instead of sundry debtors which appears to be a typographical error. We also find that the assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that a piece of agricultural land situated at Village- Pimplodi was sold on 13.08.2012 for Rs.75,00,000/- and the capital gain arising was claimed as exempt in the return of income for assessment year 2013-14 since the land was not a capital asset as per section 2(14) of the IT Act and the

6 ITA No.2513/PUN/2025 sale proceeds were immediately invested in NSEL. Accordingly, it was the contention of the assessee that the impugned addition of Rs.76,56,589/- is not an income but an investment which is properly reflected in the assessee’s books of accounts and no addition is required in this regard. 7. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in view of our above discussion, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to pass assessment order 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 the Assessing Officer in this regard and to produce relevant documents, submissions and evidences, if any, in support of her claim without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the ground nos.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Since the assessee has not pressed ground nos.1, 2 and 3, the same are dismissed as not pressed.

7 ITA No.2513/PUN/2025 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 13th day of July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 13th July, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.07.14 12:12:11 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, “B” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.