BABURAO VITHAL JADHAV ,SOLAPUR vs. ITO WD-1, PANDHARPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 817/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence in accordance with Rule 46A(1) of the IT Rules.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a farmer, did not file an income tax return. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings based on cash deposits and made an addition of Rs. 20,85,900/- under Section 68. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-compliance and rejection of additional evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal without admitting additional evidence, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Respondent: Shri Madhukar Anand
Hearing: 06.05.2026Pronounced: 18.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 817/PUN/2026 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Baburao Vithal Jadhav, ITO,Ward-1, Jadhav Vasti, Aran Indraprasth Shopping Madha, Centre, Solapur, - 413301 Vs. StationRoad, Maharashtra, Pandharpur-413304, PAN- AIQPJ8614H Maharashtra. Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Madhukar Anand, JCIT (Virtual) Date of hearing : 06.05.2026 Date of pronouncement : 18.05.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of CIT(A) passed u/sec 250 of the Income Tax Act. Assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) not admitting the additional evidence and sustaining the addition of unexplained cash deposits u/sec. 68 of the Act made by the assessing officer.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a farmer and has not filed the return of income for assessment year 2019- 20. The Assessing Officer (A.O) based on the ITBA data found that the assessee has made cash deposits in the bank account in the F.Y.2018-19. The Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act and in compliance to the notice, the assessee has filed the return of income on 16.03.2023 disclosing a total

ITA No.817/PUN/2026 Baburao Vithal Jadhav income of Rs. 1,81,010/-. Subsequently, notice u/sec 143(2) and u/sec 142(1) are issued. In response to the notice, the assessee has submitted the information to substantiate the cash deposits.Whereas the AO was not satisfied with the explanations and dealt on the provisions of Section 68 of the Act and made addition of unexplained cash deposits of Rs.20,85,900/- and assessed the total income of Rs. 22,66,908/- and passed the order u/sec 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 18.03.2024. 3.Aggrieved by the order, the assesse has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and since there was no proper compliance by the assessee. Therefore the CIT(A) considering the information on record has rejected the additional evidences and has confirmed the action of the A.O and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and the Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 5. We heard the Ld.DR submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no proper compliance in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the notices were issued. Therefore, the CIT(A) observed that in the assessment proceedings also, the assessee has partial submissions in spite of of providing sufficient opportunities and the CIT(A) has rejected the additional evidences as it did not comply with the

ITA No.817/PUN/2026 Baburao Vithal Jadhav provisions of rule 46A of the I T Rules and dismissed the appeal confirming the action of the assessing officer. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the addition by the A.O and there could be various reasons for not explaining the sufficient reasons in filling the new evidences before the CIT(A) and which cannot be overruled. Therefore, considering the facts and principles of natural justice, we shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case with evidences in accordance with rule 46A(1) of the I T Rules and information. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the entire disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh on the disputed issue and the assesse should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information. And we allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this day of 18th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- DIPAK P. RIPOTE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 18th May, 2026. Abhishek

Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.05.19 13:36:35 +05'30'

ITA No.817/PUN/2026 Baburao Vithal Jadhav आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “SMC” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →