RAMKISAN BABASAHEB GITE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 363/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 July 2026AY 2023-245 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and found that the non-compliance with notices was due to a communication gap. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny due to substantial credit card payments made in cash. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 7,62,150/- as unexplained expenditure. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte for non-compliance with notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the adjournment applications and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 115BBE,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA & SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Hari Krishan
For Respondent: Shri Vishnu Haribabu Auti

PER ASTHA CHANDRA, J.M.:

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14-08-2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”], u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”), pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2023-24. 2. There is a delay of 84 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the said delay along with an affidavit, explaining therein the reasons for such delay. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the delay is attributable to the sufficient cause. We, therefore, in light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and in the case of Inder Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 339, condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal.

2

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. He e-filed his return of income for the AY. 2023-24 on 11-10- 2023, declaring total income of Rs. 8,28,850/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS on the ground that the assessee has made substantial payment for credit card purchases in cash. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act as well as show cause notice(s) were issued to the assessee. However, there was no response to any of the notices from the side of the assessee. The Ld.AO, therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment ex-parte vide his order dt. 11-02-2025, determining the total income at Rs. 15,91,000/-, thereby making an addition of Rs. 7,62,150/- as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

4.

On appeal, since there was no response filed by the assessee to the various notices of hearing issued, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the above addition made by the Ld.AO.

5.

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex-parte for non-compliance. The Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the for assessee has uploaded the applications adjournment of the appeal in respect of the last two (02) notices of hearing dated 14-07-2025 and dated 18-07-2025. The said adjournment applications of the assessee have been ignored by the CIT (A).

2.

One more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to furnish the details/information/documents required by the Assessing Officer/CIT (A) in this regard. The assessee undertakes to file the details/information/documents required by the Income Tax authorities in this regard. The CIT (A) has failed to give a any findings/decision even on the explanation of the sources of the amount of Rs. 7,62,150/- spent through the credit cards, furnished in the statement of facts filed with the Form No. 35 before the CIT (A), duly reproduced in para 4 of the CIT (A).”

3

6.

The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had uploaded the application(s) for adjournment in respect of last two notices of hearing issued by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, however, these have been completely ignored by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. He submitted that the ex-parte assessment resulted due to the communication gap and issue of the notices by the Department on e-mail address of the new Chartered Accountant appointed by the assessee from subsequent AY. 2024-25. The assessee was, therefore, completely ignorant about on-going proceedings which resulted into ex-parte order. He, therefore, humbly prayed that an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate his case before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC by filing the requisite details/documents/explanation.

7.

The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and submitted that in spite of several opportunities granted, the assessee failed to make any representation before the lower authorities and hence, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC was completely justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

8.

We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the Parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the Ld.AO in the instant case has made an addition of Rs. 7,62,150/- u/s. 69C of the Act on account of unexplained expenditure towards purchases made through credit cards, by passing an ex-parte order dt. 11-02-2025. We find that the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has sustained the addition made by the Ld.AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of non-compliance to the various notices of hearing issued by him. Before us, the Ld.AR has submitted that non-compliance to the notice(s) was not intentional, but resulted on account of the reasons stated above. Admittedly, the assessee had filed adjournment application(s) in respect of last two notice(s) issued

4 by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, which is not in dispute. However, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC without taking the cognizance of the same proceeded to decide the appeal ex-parte by endorsing the findings of the Ld.AO. Considering the totality of facts and in the circumstances of the case, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file to decide the issue(s) raised by the assessee afresh on merits as per fact and law, after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. Needless to say, the assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and make his submissions before him on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, unless required for the sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 10-07-2026 (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (ASTHA CHANDRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे/Pune; Tadepalli Naga दिन ांक/Dated : 10-07-2026 Naga Murali Mohan Murali Mohan Date: 2026.07.10 13:00:01 +05'30' TNMM

5 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: l. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent

3.

The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune

4.

DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, ////

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →