UMESH KESHAV DESHPANDE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT) WARD 1, PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.652/PUN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Umesh Keshav Deshpande, Vs. ITO (IT), Ward-1, Pune. Kojagiri, Plot No.48, Nisang Society, Chandani Chowk, Bavdhan, Pune- 411021. PAN : AFIPD4410L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sharad A. Vaze Revenue by Shri Umesh Phade : Date of hearing : 14.05.2026 Date of pronouncement : 29.05.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.08.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The delay, if any, be condoned in filing the present appeal. The assessee is not residing in India. He is US citizen. He was not aware of any notices as well as orders passed by the lower authorities. He came to know of the orders when he landed in India on 13th Dec 2025. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, assessment order dt 18/05/2023 is bad in law as the Assessment Order was passed beyond the date prescribed u/s 153(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961.

2 ITA No.652/PUN/2026 3. Without prejudice to Ground No 2 above, in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, assessment order dt 18/05/2023 is bad in law as the Assessment Order does not indicate any issuance of notice u/s 148A(1) as well as the approval obtained by the Ld AO u/s 151. 4. Without prejudice to Ground No 2 & 3 above, in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, Ld CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine for delay of SIX days, for the reasons beyond his control. The order of CIT(A) dt 28/08/2025 be set aside and restore the appeal for de novo adjudication on merits. 5. Without prejudice to Ground No 2 to 4 above, in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the addition u/s 69 is no justifiable as the assessee had sufficient funds to purchase alleged property. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any of the grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has furnished its return of income by declaring income of Rs.19,98,260/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act on the basis of information that the assessee has not disclosed investments on purchase of immovable property for a consideration of Rs.52,41,750/- in its return of income. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 18.07.2022. Subsequently, notices u/s 142(1) and show cause notice respectively were issued to the assessee. The assessee did not furnish any reply in response to above notices, therefore, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 18.05.2023 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s

3 ITA No.652/PUN/2026 144B of the IT Act by determining income of Rs.72,40,010/- as against the income of Rs.19,98,260/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.52,41,750/- being unexplained investments in purchase of immovable property u/s 69 of the IT Act. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the appeal was filed belatedly i.e. with a delay of 6 days, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay as well as without going into merits of the case. 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 including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that admittedly the appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was filed with 6 days delay and the explanation with regard to delay furnished by the assessee was not accepted and the appeal was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without condoning the delay of 6 days and without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assessee. We further find that the assessee in

4 ITA No.652/PUN/2026 his written submission has claimed that the notice issued u/s 148 is time barred, however we find that no such ground is raised by the assessee in grounds of appeal. Although in ground no.4, the assessee requested to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and further requested to restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication of appeal on merits. 7. Considering the totality of the facts of 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 remand the matter back to him with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law on each and every grounds raised by the assessee including additional grounds, if any, raised by the assessee with regard to issue of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act beyond the surviving time limit, after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is hereby permitted to raise additional ground if any & directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to produce relevant documents, evidences and submissions, if any, in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

5 ITA No.652/PUN/2026 shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the ground no.4 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Since we have allowed ground no.4 and the appeal is restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication, rest of the grounds raised by the assessee are kept open to be decided by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 29th day of May, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 29th May, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.05.29 16:44:37 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.