ULHAS LAXMAN JADHAV,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), NASHIK

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.2551/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ulhas Laxman Jadhav, Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Nashik. Hari Om Nagar, Chinchkhed Road, Pimpalgaon Basawant, Jopul, Nashik- 422209. PAN : ACUPJ6696H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Ratnakar Shelake Date of hearing : 13.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 28.04.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.08.2025 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Ahmedabad [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1] The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine for non-prosecution of appeal without passing a speaking order adjudicating the grounds of appeal and detailed contentions

2 ITA No.2551/PUN/2025 advanced vide Statement of Facts and supporting documents uploaded electronically at the time of filing appeal, without appreciating that the said action of the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in Premkumar Arjundas Luthra [(2017) 297 CTR 614]. 2] Without prejudice to the above ground, the appellant submits that there was a reasonable cause due to which proper compliance could not be made before the A.O. in the course of the asst. proceedings and therefore, it is prayed that the matter may please be set aside to the file of the A.O. for conducting asst. afresh after granting one more opportunity of being heard, in the interest of justice. 3] The appellant submits that the learned A.O. failed to issue notice u/s 143(2) in response to the return filed by the appellant u/s 148 and therefore, the re-asst. order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 may be declared as bad in law being with jurisdiction. 4] Without prejudice to the above grounds, the appellant submits that the asst. of the appellant was re-opened by issuing notice u/s 148 merely on the borrowed satisfaction and without application of mind by the A.O. i.e. cash deposits made in the bank account and non-filing of return and therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 as well as the consequential asst. proceedings are invalid in the eyes of law. 5] Without prejudice to the above grounds, the appellant submits that the learned A.O. has failed to supply the copy of reasons recorded for reopening the asst. of the appellant u/s 147 as contemplated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO [2002] 125 Taxman 963 and therefore, the entire re-asst. proceedings may be declared as void – ab – initio. 6] Without prejudice to the above grounds, the appellant submits that the application sent by the A.O. to the higher authority for obtaining approval u/s 151 and the approval u/s 151 obtained from the Higher Authority u/s 151 has not been confronted to the appellant along with the Notice u/s 148 and hence, the notice u/s 148 may be declared as null and void in view of CBDT instructions F.No.299/10/2022-Dir(lnv.III)/611 Dated: 01.08.2022 as well as the law laid down by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Tia Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO [(2024) 468 ITR 5], with the SLP in this case being dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

3 ITA No.2551/PUN/2025 7] Without prejudice to the above grounds, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 45,78,200 made by the A.O. u/s 69A towards cash deposits in bank account without appreciating that the said cash deposits represented sale receipts in cash of the appellant from sale of fertilizers, pesticides, etc. to farmers/ agriculturists, cash withdrawals from bank accounts, and recovery from debtors and therefore, addition of the entire cash deposits made in the bank account is not justified in law and on facts. 8] The appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not furnished his return of income for the year under consideration. On the basis of information that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.45,78,200/- in his bank account maintained with UCO Bank, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act and notice dated 29.03.2019 u/s 148 was issued to the assessee after obtaining approval from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Nashik. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) and 144(1) of the IT Act were issued to the assessee since the assessee did not comply with any of the above notices, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the IT Act and vide order dated 27.11.2019 determined the income at Rs.45,78,200/- as against no return filed by the assessee. The above assessed income includes

4 ITA No.2551/PUN/2025 addition of Rs.45,78,200/- u/s 69A of the IT Act being unexplained credit in the bank account. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that it the sole request of the counsel of the assessee that the matter may kindly be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer so that the assessee can substantiate his claim before the Assessing Officer. In this regard, we further find that it is the claim of the assessee that he has furnished return in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act and it is also the claim of the assessee that he has not sold any property since the addition was made by the Assessing Officer under the head “Income from LTCG (Long Term Capital Gain)”. In this regard, it was also clarified before the Bench that the assessee is engaged in trading of fertilizers and pesticides to farmers and the impugned cash deposited in UCO Bank account was related with

5 ITA No.2551/PUN/2025 the above trading business, therefore, addition of entire cash deposit is not justified. It was also the contention before the Bench that in the light of section 250(6) of the IT Act Ld. CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits of the case and in this regard reliance was placed on judgement passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Premkumar Arjundas Luthra [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom.) 7. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and with the consent of both the parties restore the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the issue 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 Assessing Officer in this regard and to produce relevant documents, evidences and submissions to substantiate his case 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.

6 ITA No.2551/PUN/2025 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 28th day of April, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 28th April, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.04.30 12:03:42 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Ahmedabad. 4. The Pr.CIT/CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.