PANDURANG ANADA MATALE,NASHIK vs. WARD 3(1), NASHIK/, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2902/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 June 2026AY 2012-135 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to follow Rule 46A by not providing the AO an opportunity to examine additional evidence admitted. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the assessment order for de-novo adjudication by the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a purchase deed was erroneously recorded as a cash payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- and later filed a correction deed stating no consideration was paid. The Assessing Officer (AO) and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the addition, citing the correction deed as an afterthought. Additional evidence was filed before the tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in admitting additional evidence without providing the AO an opportunity to respond, and whether the addition under Section 69A was sustainable based on the correction deed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Pardeshi,CA
For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sathe, JCIT

आदेश /ORDER

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2012-13 on 01-10-2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 23-12-2019.

2.

Submission of Ld.AR: Ld.AR filed paper book. Ld.AR submitted that inadvertently in the registered Purchase deed dated 31/12/2012, it was mentioned that the Purchasers Pandurang Matale and Mrs.Lata Matale had paid consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- in cash from time to time to Seller Mrs.Suvarna Matale. Ld.AR submitted that this mistake was realized by the Assessee subsequently hence they entered into a Registered Correction Deed dated 27/11/2019 stating that no consideration was paid by Purchaser to seller. Ld.AR submitted that Affidavit of Suvarna Matale (seller) was filed wherein she admitted that no amount was received. Ld.AR submitted that Suvarna Matale is daughter in Law of Pandurang Matale

ITA No.2902/PUN/2025

and Mrs.Lata Matale. Ld.AR invited our attention to the HDFC bank statement to plead that subsequently Mr.Pandurang Matale had made payment to Mrs.Suvarana Matale. Ld.AR submitted that the bank statement is additional evidence. Ld.AR submitted that addition is not sustainable.

3.

Submission of Ld.DR: Ld.DR relied on the order of the AO and CIT(A). Ld.DR submitted that the Correction Deed is not genuine as it was entered only to avoid tax. Ld.DR submitted that AO should be provided opportunity to examine Additional evidence. Ld.DR submitted that CIT(A) has admitted additional evidence without providing opportunity to the AO.

4.

Findings and analysis: We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case Assessee Mr.Pandurang Ananda Matale had not filed return of Income for AY 2012-13. The Assessing Officer had received information that Assessee had purchased immovable property for Rs.40,00,000/-, hence the AO issued Notice u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2012-13 on 29/3/2019. The Assessee, in response to Notice u/s 148, filed return of Income on 6/12/2019 declaring Total Income at Rs.3,42,100/- . 4.1 During the Assessment proceedings the Assessee submitted that inadvertently it was mentioned in the Registered Purchase deed dated 31/12/2011 that Pandurang Matale and Mrs.Lata Matale has paid Rs.40,00,000/- in cash from time to time to Mrs.Suvarana Matale. Assessee filed copy of Registered Correction Deed dated 27/11/2019 before the AO. Copy of the same has been filed in the paper book at page 24-42. The AO taxed Rs.40,00,000/- u/s 69A in the hands of the Assessee Pandurang Matale. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order the Assessee filed Appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.AO and Ld.CIT(A) has noted that Registered Correction Deed is only on Stamp Paper of Rs.100/- and no stamp duty has been made on Correction Deed. Ld.CIT(A) held that the Correction deed was merely an after thought to avoid tax, Ld.CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs.40,00,000/-. 4.2 Aggrieved by the Order of Ld.CIT(A) , the assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal.

ITA No.2902/PUN/2025

4.3 Additional Evidence Filed before TRIBUNAL: Before this Tribunal ,Ld.AR filed copy of 7/12 extract issued on 27/02/2026 by Village Revenue Officer which was admittedly not filed before the AO or Ld.CIT(A). Ld.AR also filed copy of HDFC Bank statement of Mr.Pandurang Matale for the period 28/06/2023 to 23/02/2026 which was not filed before the Ld.CIT(A) and AO. Thus, it was additional evidence filed by Ld.AR . In the interest of Justice we admit the additional evidence filed by the Ld.AR. However, it is mandatory for us to provide opportunity of hearing to the revenue. 4.4 It is observed that the Assessee had filed following documents before Ld.CIT(A) :  Copy of Development Agreement  Copy of Purchase deed dt.31/12/2011  Copy of Correction Deed dt.27/11/2019  Computation of Income and ITR acknowledgment  Affidavit of Mrs.Suvarana Matale dt.9/8/2021  Audit Report and Financial statement of Mrs.Suvarana Matale. 4.5 It is also observed that as per the Assessment Order, during Assessment Proceedings only the Registered Purchase deed Dated 31/12/2011 and Registered Correction deed dated 27/11/2019 was submitted before the AO. The AO has discussed only about the Registered Purchase deed Dated 31/12/2011 and Registered Correction Deed. Therefore, it apparently seems that some of the above-mentioned documents were not filed before the AO. It is obvious that Affidavit of Mrs.Suvarana Matale dated 9/8/2021 was not filed before the AO during Assessment Proceedings as the Assessment Order was passed on 23/12/2019. No where the Ld.CIT(A) has mentioned that the documents filed by the Assessee which were not filed before the AO were forwarded to AO for his comments. Thus, it is clear that though the Ld.CIT(A) has admitted Additional Evidence but has failed to provide opportunity to the AO as envisaged under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. As per Rule 46A the Ld.CIT(A) has to record his satisfaction while admitting documents which were not filed before the AO and then provide opportunity to the AO to rebut the submission of the Assessee. This procedure has not been followed by the Ld.CIT(A) which is violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.

ITA No.2902/PUN/2025

4.6 It is also noted that neither the Ld.CIT(A) nor the AO has verified the Records of the Municipal Corporation or Revenue Authority to find out whether as per the Records of the Municipal Corporation or Revenue Authority , whether the impugned land and the structure standing on the land was in the name of Mr. Pandurang Matale (purchaser) or Mrs.Suvarna Matale (seller) after December 2011. We have already mentioned above that Ld.AR filed copy of 7/12 extract issued on 27/02/2026 by Village Revenue Officer, which was not filed before the Ld.CIT(A) or AO. 4.7 Assessee had filed Affidavit of Seller Mrs.Suvarana Matale dated 9/8/2021stating that she had not received the amount. However, the AO had no opportunity to verify the impugned Affidavit. We cannot be oblivious of the violation of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules by the Ld.CIT(A). 4.8 In these facts and circumstances of the case ,we do not intend to comment on the merits of the addition , we set aside the Assessment Order to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication. Assessee shall be at liberty to file all the necessary documents before the AO. AO shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 5. Accordingly appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 24th June, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 24-06-2026 Ravi Kumar Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.07.07 14:53:55 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune 4

ITA No.2902/PUN/2025

S.No. Details Date Designation 1 Draft dictated on Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before the Second 3 JM/AM Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS Date on which the file goes to the Office 9 Superintendent 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of 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 →