SUREKHA BHARAT PATIL (L/H OF LATE SHRI BHARAT BALU PATIL),NAVI MUMBAI. vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-PANVEL, PANVEL

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.1595/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Surekha Bharat Patil (L/H of Vs. ACIT, Circle, Panvel. Late Shri Bharat Balu Patil), 301, Neelsidhi Prime Building No.4, Sector 18, New Panvel, Navi Mumbai- 410206. PAN : AGGPP6172Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Ritika Agarwal (Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Eknath Abhang (Virtual) Date of hearing : 06.05.2026 Date of pronouncement : 18.05.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee was an individual and has furnished his return of income on 02.12.2016 by declaring an income of Rs.20,12,170/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS and accordingly notices u/s 143(2), 142(1)

2 ITA No.1595/PUN/2025 and show cause notice respectively were issued to the assessee. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 20.12.2018 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the IT Act by determining the income of Rs.6,19,96,554/- as against the income of Rs.20,12,170/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.5,99,84,384/- being share of the assessee in long term capital gain. 3. 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. 4. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 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 the assessee has already expired and the present appeal before this Tribunal is filed by the wife of the assessee being legal heir. We further find that when the first appeal was decided the appellant was already expired and since email mentioned on Form 35 belonged to the erstwhile consultant,

3 ITA No.1595/PUN/2025 the legal heir or other family member were not having any knowledge with regard to assessment order or first appellate order, therefore, nobody could appear before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC which resulted in unfortunate ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The legal heir also furnished an application for admission of additional evidence in shape of valuation report with regard to cost of acquisition of the impugned property subject matter of long term capital gain. Accordingly, it was the sole request of Ld. Counsel of the assessee to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer since the original assessee has already expired and the additional evidence goes to the root of the matter, which needs verification at the level of the Assessing Officer. 6. 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 considering the additional evidences, if any, and after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to

4 ITA No.1595/PUN/2025 respond to the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in this regard and to produce relevant documents, additional evidences and submissions, if any, in support of its contentions and claim 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 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 18th day of May, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 18th May, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.05.19 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 11:13:08 +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.