SANDIPAN RAM PHUTANE,LATUR vs. THE ITO WARD-1 , LATUR

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.3070/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sandipan Ram Phutane, Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Latur. A/p Gangapur, Latur- 413531. PAN : ABIPP2891H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Manoj Tripathi (Virtual) Date of hearing : 21.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 28.04.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. There is delay of 41 days in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for

2 ITA No.3070/PUN/2025

condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the appellant prays before the Hon'ble Bench to grant an opportunity to represent the matter before the ld. CIT(A). 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessment Order is invalid and bad in law. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessment Order is invalid and bad in law in as much as the notice u/s 148 has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer contrary to the CBDT Circular No. 18/2022/F.No. 370142/16/2022/TPL(Part1) dated 29/03/2022 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer erred in assessing the total income at Rs.65,24,837/- 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer erred in not considering the submission that the appellant has made cash deposits of Rs. 4,22,000/- only during A.Y. 2018-19 and not Rs 59,48,227/- as alleged by the Assessing Officer 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer erred in not taking cognizance of the submission of the appellant that the appellant has received retirement benefits of Rs 55,37,227/- during the relevant assessment year and the same has been wrongly considered as cash deposit. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Assessing Officer erred in invoking the provision of section 69A

3 ITA No.3070/PUN/2025

of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in as much as the appellant has not made cash deposit as alleged by the Assessing Officer 7. The appellant craves for leave to add alter amend delete etc the above grounds of appeal in the interest of natural justice.” 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and on the basis of information through insight portal that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.59,48,227/-, however has not furnished his return of income for the year under consideration. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act after following the procedure of section 148A of the IT Act. Subsequently, notice dated 06.04.2022 u/s 148 was issued to the assessee and the assessee furnished return of income in response to above notice declaring income of Rs.5,76,610/-. Thereafter, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) and show cause notices respectively were issued to the assessee. The assessee did not replied to any of the above notices, therefore, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 18.03.2024 completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining income of Rs.65,24,837/- as against the income of Rs.5,76,610/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed

4 ITA No.3070/PUN/2025

income includes addition of Rs.59,48,227/- u/s 69A of the IT Act being unexplained money deposited in bank account. 5. 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 for want of prosecution. 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. When the appeal was called for hearing neither anybody appeared nor any application for adjournment was filed despite due service of notice of hearing, therefore, we proceed to adjudicate the appeal on the basis of material available on record as well as after hearing Ld. DR. 8. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. We further find that it is the sole request of the assessee in ground no.1 that the appellant may kindly be given an

5 ITA No.3070/PUN/2025

opportunity to represent his case before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC since the additional evidence which is now furnished before this Bench is now in possession of the assessee which could not be produced earlier, either before Assessing Officer or before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 9. 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 with a direction to decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law after considering the additional evidences, if any, filed by the assessee and also after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to produce additional evidences, if any, and relevant documents, evidences, submissions to substantiate 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. Thus, the ground no.1 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Since we have already

6 ITA No.3070/PUN/2025

restored the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law after considering additional evidence, if any, the other grounds of appeal need not be adjudicated, and are kept open. 10. 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 11:21:30 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.