VITTHAL KRUSHANATH AHIRE,SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO, WARD 4(3), PUNE, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1784/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 June 2026AY 2012-20134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with evidence, emphasizing principles of natural justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to respond to notices from the Assessing Officer regarding cash deposits and did not file a return. Consequently, income was added, and a penalty was levied. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits, and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 271(1)(c),Section 274,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Smt. Kiran Sanmane .AR
For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Hearing: 19.05.2026Pronounced: 02.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE, BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1784/PUN/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vitthal Krushanath Ahire, ITO, Ward 4(3), Khadakpura Galli, Vairag, PunePMTBuilding, Barshi, Solapur-413402, ShankarSheth Road, Maharashtra. Pune-411037, PAN- ADDPA9504H Vs. Maharashtra. Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Smt. Kiran Sanmane .AR (Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT (Virtual) Date of hearing : 19.05.2026 Date of pronouncement : 02.06.2026 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of NFAC/CIT(A) passed u/sec271(1)(c) and u/sec 250 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) sustaining the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that, the Income Tax Department got the information from ITBA that the assessee has made cash deposits aggregating to Rs.11,19,000/- in IDBI Bank in the F.Y.2011-12 and the assessee has not filed return of income for A.Y.2012-13. The Assessing Officer (A.O) has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act and there was no

ITA No.1784/PUN/2025 Vithal Krushanath Ahire compliance. Further notice u/sec 142(1) of the Act was issued to substantiate the sources of the deposits with bank account and there was also no compliance. Finally the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of Section 144 of the Act and made addition of unexplained cash deposits u/sec 69A of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs.11,19,000/- and passed the order u/sec 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 20.11.2019.Subsequently the Assessing officer issued penalty notice u/sec274 r.w.s u/sec271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of Rs.1,86,120/- vide order dated 29.03.2022.

3.

Aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(A). Whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statements of facts and finding of the AO and issued notice of hearings and since there was no compliance by the assessee to the notices, therefore, CIT(A) considering information on record has confirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

4.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that CIT(A) has erred in not considering the information of quantum appeal pending before the first appellate authority. Further, the Ld.AR mentioned that non-compliance of notices before the CIT(A) is not a wanton act and the assessee has a good case of merits and shall substantiate with material evidences and prayed for an opportunity before the Lower authorities. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the order of CIT(A).

ITA No.1784/PUN/2025 Vithal Krushanath Ahire 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima facie CIT(A) has passed the order considering the facts that there is no compliance in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and notices were issued. Therefore, CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and dismiss the appeal ex-parte confirming the action of the Assessing Officer. Whereas the CIT(A) has issued notices on various dates referred at Page 2, Para 2.1 of the order but there was no response. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the levy of penalty by the A.O and there could be various reasons for non appearance/ non compliance which cannot be overruled. Further the Ld.AR submitted that the quantum appeal is pending before the CIT(A) and prayed for opportunity before the lower authorities. Therefore, We considering the facts, circumstances, submissions and principles of natural justice, we shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case with evidences and information. Accordingly, We set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal. And the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No.1784/PUN/2025 Vithal Krushanath Ahire 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on the day of 02nd June, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- MANISH BORAD PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : June, 2026. Abhishek mohan आिेश की प्रतितितप अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीि र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. तिभ गीय प्रतितनति, आयकर अपीिीय अतिकरण, “SMC” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इि / Guard File. 5. //True File//

आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

Assistant Registrar, आयकर अपीिीय अतिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →