MAHADEV SHANKAR CHAVHAN,PUNE vs. THE ITO 8(1), PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.343/PUN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Mahadev Shankar Chavhan, Vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Pune. S. No.197, Pune-Nashik Highway, Near Suvarna Hotel, Bhosarigoan, S.O. Pune City, Pune- 411039. PAN : ACXPC3728N Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue by : Shri Manoj Tripathi (Virtual) Date of hearing : 23.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 29.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.09.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. There is delay of 53 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 appeal

2 ITA No.343/PUN/2026 within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay of 53 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in upholding the learned AO's addition of Rs. 4,25,58,172/- to the total income of the appellant on account of unexplained Investment/Money. 2. The learned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (i.e. "JAO") erred in assuming jurisdiction by issuing notice u/s 148 of ITA, 1961 dated 23-02-2024; and; learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the same impliedly. Appellant contends that, after amendment u/s 151A, the 148 notice ought to have been issued only by the Faceless Assessing Officer (i.e. FAO) and not the "JAO" as so explained and held in the decision in case of Hexaware Technologies Limited v/s ACIT (Bombay HC-162 taxmann.com 225). Appellant contends that the present reassessment proceedings are bad in law and ought to be quashed. 3. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,17,00,255/- made by the Ld. AO u/s 69A of the Act by treating cash deposits and withdrawals as unexplained money, without appreciating the nature of the appellant's business, cash flow cycle, and the detailed explanations furnished during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. The addition is made merely on surmises and conjectures and is liable to be deleted. 4. The learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,08,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO u/s 69 of the Act by treating the said amount as unexplained investment, without appreciating that the investment was made out of accumulated business income and unsecured loans received from friends and relatives, which were duly explained and substantiated during the course of assessment as well as appellate proceedings. 5. The learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 57,917/- made by the Ld. AO u/s 69 of the Act, without appreciating that the said transactions

3 ITA No.343/PUN/2026 were carried out by the appellant's son on behalf of the appellant and were duly sourced from the appellant's past savings. 6. The appellant craves leave to add/modify/amend/delete all/any of the grounds of appeal.” 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual claimed to be engaged in the business of running a motor garage & also working as a sub-contractor in the construction sector. The assessee has not filed his return of income for the assessment year under consideration. On the basis of information from the insight portal that the assessee has purchased immovable property for an amount of Rs.1,08,00,000/- and also deposited cash of Rs.20,58,890/- in his bank account and also withdrawn cash to the tune of Rs.84,53,000/- from his bank account, however, return of income has not been furnished which suggests that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year, therefore, after following due procedure, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 23.02.2024 to the assessee. In response to the above notice, the assessee has filed return of income on 27.12.2024, however, the above return was treated as invalid and non-est since the return was furnished beyond the time limit allowed

4 ITA No.343/PUN/2026 to the assessee. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) of the IT Act 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 12.03.2025 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining the income of Rs.4,25,58,172/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.1,08,00,000/- being addition on account of unexplained investment in immovable property u/s 69 of the IT Act and addition of Rs.57,917/- being addition on account of unexplained investment in shares/securities u/s 69 of the IT Act and addition of Rs.3,17,00,255/- being addition on account of credit entries in his bank accounts as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act. 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 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

5 ITA No.343/PUN/2026 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 sole request of the counsel of the assessee that the matter may kindly be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper appreciation of facts since the assessment order was passed u/s 144 of the IT Act and it was also the contention that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC provided time to respond upto 27.08.2025 whereas the assessee could respond to the hearing notice only on 28.08.2025, therefore, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC have not considered the written submission furnished by the assessee. 8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and 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 the file of the Jurisdictional 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 Jurisdictional

6 ITA No.343/PUN/2026 Assessing Officer in this regard and to produce relevant documents, submissions and evidences in support of his contentions without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer 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. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 29th day of June, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 29th June, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.06.29 12:32:08 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.