GAJANAN CHINTAMAN VAIDYA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3), PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.177/PUN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Gajanan Chintaman Vaidya, Vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Pune. C-7, Manek Apartment, New DP Road, Near Ashish Garden Kothrud, Bhusari Colony, S.O., Pune City, Pune- 411038. PAN : AFVPV1881J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sarvesh Kandelwal Revenue by : Shri Mithun Shete Date of hearing : 30.06.2026 Date of pronouncement : 30.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. There is delay of 111 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

2 ITA No.177/PUN/2026 applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay of 111 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The delay in filing an appeal may please be condoned on the basis of facts & in order to grant the justice to the appellant. 2. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of the Act it be held that the order passed by the assessing officer is perverse and high pitched and without understanding the facts prevailing in the case and explanations given. It also be held that the assessment order passed is without following the rules of natural justice in as much as without finding out the data uploaded on the e-filing portal and its correctness or otherwise. The order passed be held to be null and void and not tenable in law. Just and proper relief be granted to the Appellant. 3. Without prejudice to ground no. 2, on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of the Act it be held that the addition of Rs. 6,00,07,500/- made by the assessing officer is based on incorrect/duplicate data received from the Insight portal. Hence the same may be deleted. Just and proper relief be granted to the Appellant. 4. Without prejudice to ground no. 2, on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of the Act it be held that the addition of Rs. 6,00,07,500/- made by the assessing officer ignoring the fact that the Appellant is not the original owner but only a power of attorney holder in the transaction of sale of land. Hence the same may be deleted. Just and proper relief be granted to the Appellant. 5. Without prejudice to ground no. 2, on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of the Act it be held that the addition of Rs. 6,00,07,500/- made by the assessing officer stating the irrelevant fact that power of attorney furnished by the Appellant is not related to the property transaction which took place at an earlier date is not in accordance with the provisions of law. Just and proper relief be granted to the Appellant.

3 ITA No.177/PUN/2026 6. Without prejudice to ground no. 2, on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provisions of the Act it be held that initiation of proceedings u/s 148 of the Act by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on the basis of said proceedings is without jurisdiction, bad in law, unwarranted, and the same be cancelled. 7. The Appellant prays to be allowed to raise, modify, rectify, or amend, any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. On the basis of information available on Insight portal that the assessee has done large financial transactions i.e. sold immovable property for Rs.4,00,05,000/- however, has not furnished his return of income disclosing the above transaction therefore, the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act and notice u/s 148 was issued on 23.03.2023 after following the procedure of section 148A(d) of the IT Act. The assessee furnished return in response to above notice issued u/s 148 of the IT Act by declaring an income of Rs.1,20,250/- on 09.11.2023. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) respectively were issued to the assessee. Not being satisfied with the reply and submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 26.03.2024 completed the assessment

4 ITA No.177/PUN/2026 proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining income of the assessee at Rs.6,01,27,750/- as against the income of Rs.1,20,250/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.6,00,07,500/- being short-term capital gain on sale of immovable property. 5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that the appeal hearing notices were not sent on the email ID mentioned in Form 35 rather sent on other email ID, therefore, the assessee could not reply to the hearing notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and consequently, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC decided the appeal ex-parte and dismissed all the grounds raised by the assessee. It is the sole request of the Counsel of the assessee that the matter may kindly be

5 ITA No.177/PUN/2026 restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC so that the assessee can substantiate the grounds of appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It was also submitted that the assessee is not liable to make payment of any taxes since he is not the actual beneficiary and he is only the power of attorney holder. All other grounds were not pressed by Ld. counsel of the assessee. 8. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the ex-parte order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to furnish reply, submission, documents and evidences in support of grounds of appeal without taking 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.

6 ITA No.177/PUN/2026 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 30th day of June, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 30th June, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.07.01 14:20:12 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, “A” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.