CHETAN BANDULAL BHANDARI ,PUNE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2863/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2023-24 Chetan Bandulal Bhandari, Vs. DCIT, Circle-5, Pune. Bhandari House, 1140 Raviwar Peth, Pune- 411002. PAN : ACDPB2486J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Beek Singh Rajpurohit Revenue by : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar (Virtual) Date of hearing : 24.03.2026 Date of pronouncement : 15.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.09.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2023-24. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has not followed principle of natural justice and dismissed the appeal without considering the facts and circumstances discussed in the grounds of appeal as well as statement of facts and submission made along with Form-35 while filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law by dismissing the appeal ex-parte u/s 250 of the I.T. Act without granting proper and meaningful opportunity, even though the appellant never received e-notices

2 ITA No.2863/PUN/2025 because the email IDs on the portal were not belonged to him and not in access to him. This is a violation of the principles of natural justice. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition u/s 69C of the I.T. Act in respect of claim of commission expenses against sale of properties as per agreement amounting to Rs. 8,00,000/- though these expenses were duly recorded in the books of account and claimed as expenses. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining disallowance of interest expenses u/s 57 of the I.T. Act of Rs. 19,69,396/- though these expenses were claimed against interest income earned from utilization of borrowed fund and there was nexus between interest income earned and interest expenses incurred. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, to alter, amend, or delete all or any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal on or before or at the time of hearing.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from salary, house property, business income and also income from other sources and have furnished his return of income declaring an income of Rs.2,02,93,990/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2), 142(1) and show cause notices respectively were issued to the assessee. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 21.02.2025 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining income of the assessee at Rs.2,30,63,386/- as against income of Rs.2,02,93,990/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.8 lakh on account of disallowance of commission expenses and disallowance of Rs.19,69,396/- on account of disallowance of interest expenses claimed u/s 57 of the IT Act.

3 ITA No.2863/PUN/2025 4. 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 without going into the merits of the case. 5. 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 sole request of counsel of the assessee that one more opportunity may kindly be provided to the assessee to appear & substantiate the grounds of appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC since the first appellate order was passed ex-parte in the absence of the assessee. Ld. counsel of the assessee pointed out that the notices of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on an email which was not used by the assessee and belongs to erstwhile consultant who did not inform to the assessee about the dates of hearing. In the absence of knowledge of hearing before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee could not represent his case. 6. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the

4 ITA No.2863/PUN/2025 assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to produce reply, submission, evidences and documents 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. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for the statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 15th day of June, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 15th June, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.06.15 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 16:14:58 +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.