NARAYAN HARICHANDRA WAGHMARE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(5), AURANGABAD

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.101/PUN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Narayan Harichandra Vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Waghmare, Aurangabad. Plot No.12, Gut No.37, Bhavishdeep Nagar, Sajapur, Wadgaon Kolhati, Bajaj Nagar, MIDC, Waluj SO, Aurangabad- 431136. PAN : ABTPW3244N Appellant Respondent : Shri Ramesh Thete Patil (Virtual) Assessee by : Shri Sandeep Sathe Revenue by Date of hearing : 07.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 18.05.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.10.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. There is delay of 13 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.101/PUN/2026 within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay of 13 days and proceed to adjudicate the 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 available with the Department that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.45,06,000/- and further cash of Rs.35,28,000/- in his bank account and purchased time deposits of Rs.35,02,000/-, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act since the income related with the above transactions were not reflected in the return of income. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 and subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) and u/s 144 of the IT Act and show cause notices respectively were issued to the assessee. The assessee did not made any compliance to the above notices, therefore, vide order dated 08.02.2024 the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining income of Rs.45,57,165/- as against no return filed by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.45,06,000/- being unexplained money deposited in bank account u/s 69A of the IT Act and addition of Rs.51,165/- being interest on FDR under the head ‘Income from other sources’. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the appellant

3 ITA No.101/PUN/2026 has offered “not applicable” comments at Serial No.9 of From 35 and has not deposited advance tax or the demand raised in the assessment order and the appellant also did not requested for exemption u/s 249(b) of the IT Act, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal as infructuous without admitting the same for adjudication. 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. We find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee, without admitting the same for adjudication, on the sole ground of non-payment of advance tax in accordance with section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act. In this regard, we are of the considered opinion that the advance tax if any payable as per section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act is to be determined at the behest of the assessee. If there is no advance tax liability according to the assessee, then he need not to deposit the same & Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is required to admit the appeal of the assessee in such an event. In the instant case, it is the claim of the assessee that since the assessee remained absent the assessment order was passed ex-parte & whatever defence was legally available to the assessee were not allowed by the Assessing Officer. It is the contention of the

4 ITA No.101/PUN/2026 assessee that the ex-parte order resulted in determination of unnecessary taxable income in the hands of the assessee. We find that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in a summery manner without admitting the same for adjudication on merits of the case. 7. It was the observation of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC that the assessee was required to deposit advance tax in the light of section 249(4)(b) of the IT Act. However, we are of the considered opinion that the above finding of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is not sustainable as per law. In this regard, we find support from the decisions passed by Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dilip Hiralal Chaudhari vs. ITO in ITA No.642/PUN/2024 order dated 05.06.2024 and in the case of Vishnusharan Chandravanshi vs. ITO in ITA No.73/RPR/2024 order dated 10.04.2024 and also from the judgement passed by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Govidappa Setty vs. ITO, 232 ITR 892 (Karnataka) wherein under similar circumstances the appeal of the assessee was allowed. Accordingly, considering the totality of the facts of the case 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 him with a direction to admit the appeal & adjudicate the same on merits of the case after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to

5 ITA No.101/PUN/2026 respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and to produce relevant documents, evidences and submission in support of grounds of appeal without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC 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. 8. 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/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (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 : 12:23:54 +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.