NIKUNJ BHANUSHALI,NANDED vs. WARD 1 NANDED, NANDED

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2439/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2026AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions were not properly considered by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A), indicating a lack of proper opportunity. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment for AY 2016-17 was completed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144, with an addition for unexplained money under Section 69A. The assessee contended that they did not receive a fair opportunity to plead their case before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was provided with a reasonable opportunity of being heard during the assessment and appellate proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Narendra
For Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar (virtual)
Hearing: 29.04.2026Pronounced: 12.05.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 21.08.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 21.04.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee revolves around the addition for unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act at Rs.55,43,230/-.

3.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee did not get fair opportunity to plead before the Assessing Officer and further ld.CIT(A) has also not considered

2 Nikunj Bhanushali

the submissions filed by the assessee and therefore requested to set aside the matter to the file of ld. Juri ictional Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication.

4.

On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

5.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and assessment for A.Y. 2016-17 concluded u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act and after making the Addition for unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act to the returned income of Rs.2,82,530 income has been assessed at Rs.58,25,760/-. We note that the assessee responded to the notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Copy of which are placed at pages 78 to 85 of the paper book. However, ld. Assessing Officer has not considered these submissions and passed Best Judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act. Even before ld.CIT(A) assessee has filed the submissions in the month of June 2025 but the same seems to have not been considered by ld.CIT(A). Even in the impugned order, ld.CIT(A) has not referred to any details of notices of hearing issued to the assessee and the submissions filed by it which shows that proper opportunity has not been granted.

6.

Considering all these facts, we deem it proper to set aside the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld. Juri ictional Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.JAO in the set aside proceedings shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is directed to update email and contact details on the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause,

3 Nikunj Bhanushali

failing which the ld. JAO shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Finding of the ld.CIT(A) is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 12th day of May, 2026. (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 12th May, 2026. Satish

Satish Kumar Madishetty 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, “B” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

////

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →