SANTOSH SWARUPCHAND SAKHALA,NASHIK vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NASHIK

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.3349/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Santosh Swarupchand Vs. Assessment Unit, Sakhala, Income Tax Department. 3 Rane Heritage, Gangapur Road, Sawarkar Nagar, Nashik- 422005. PAN : APEPS6481G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Chinmay Pathak (Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Harshit Bari (Virtual) Date of hearing : 16.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 28.04.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. There is delay of 244 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

2 ITA No.3349/PUN/2025 applicant was prevented by sufficient cause (i.e. suffering from spinal injury) 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] The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the asst. order u/s 147 without appreciating that the income allegedly escaping asst. for this year was only Rs.24,01,390 i.e. much below the threshold of Rs.50 lakhs as per the A.O.’s own admission in the asst. order and therefore, the notice u/s 148 dated 21.03.2023 issued after a period of three years from the end of A.Y.2016 – 17 and the consequential asst. order u/s 147was unsustainable in the eyes of law. 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the asst. order u/s 147 without appreciating that the regt. deed clearly reflected that the impugned flat was co-purchased by the appellant along with spouse for total consideration of Rs.57 lakhs and thus, any rational person would have formed an opinion that the appellant’s share in the said flat was only Rs.28.50 lakhs i.e. much below the prescribed threshold of Rs.50 lakhs and therefore, the notice u/s 148 dated 21.03.2023 issued after a period of three years from the end of A.Y.2016 – 17 and the consequential asst. order u/s 147was unsustainable. 3] The assessee submits that the notice u/s 148 issued after three years from end of A.Y.2016 – 17 and the consequential asst. order u/s 147 passed by assessing the total income at Rs.24,01,390 is unsustainable in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble ITAT, Pune in case of Vaishali Keshav Kulkarni v. ITO [ITA No. 540/PUNE/2025] and various other decisions and therefore, it is prayed that the above legal issue may please be adjudicated by Hon’ble ITAT itself without remitting it back to the file of the CIT(A) in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and prolonged litigation. 4] Without prejudice to the above grounds, the appellant submits that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 69 of Rs.16,39,200 made by the A.O. towards unexplained investment in flat without appreciating that the said addition was not justified on facts of the case and in law.

3 ITA No.3349/PUN/2025 5] Without prejudice to the above grounds, the appellant submits that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of Rs.5,58,500 made by the A.O. towards difference in govt. valuation and actual purchase consideration of flat without appreciating that the said addition was not justified on facts of the case and in law. 6] Without prejudice to the above grounds, it is submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine for non prosecution of appeal without passing any speaking order adjudicating the grounds of appeal and contentions advanced by way of detailed statement of facts and therefore, the said order passed by the CIT(A) is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in Premkumar Arjundas Luthra [(2017) 297 CTR 614]. 7] The appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not furnished his return of income for the period under consideration. On the basis of information on the insight portal of the Department that the assessee has purchased an immovable property for Rs.57 lakhs and its sources remained unexplained since return of income has not been furnished, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act after following due procedure of section 148A of the IT Act and after obtaining approval from prescribed authority. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 21.03.2023 and in response to the said notice, the assessee filed his return of income declaring an income of Rs.2,03,690/-. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2), 142(1) and show

4 ITA No.3349/PUN/2025 cause notices respectively were issued to the assessee. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 27.02.2024 completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining income of the assessee at Rs.24,01,390/- as against the income of Rs.2,03,690/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.16,39,200/- u/s 69 of the IT Act being unexplained investment in purchase of immovable property and addition of Rs.5,58,500/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the IT Act being the difference between the stamp duty value and value as per sale deed. 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. 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both sides and perused the material available on record. 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.6

5 ITA No.3349/PUN/2025 that the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified since Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not followed the provisions of sub- section (6) of section 250 of the IT Act. In support of this contention, Ld. AR relied on judgement passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Premkumar Arjundas Luthra [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom.). 8. 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 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 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.6 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Since we have already restored the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and

6 ITA No.3349/PUN/2025 law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, the other grounds of appeal need not be adjudicated, and are kept open. 9. 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/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (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 11:28:41 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, “SMC” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.