SHRI SAI MINING SERVICE,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KUDAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3103/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2026AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that they deserved an opportunity to present expense details and prove similar business activity in the past. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 106 days, which the Tribunal condoned. The assessee's grievance was the confirmation of an addition made by the Assessing Officer for gross business receipts.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to present evidence of expenses and past business activity when a best judgment assessment was made due to non-appearance before the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 44AB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S Shingte
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl, DR (Through virtual)
Hearing: 23.04.2026Pronounced: 19.05.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2014-15 is directed against the order dated 09.06.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 22.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act.

2.

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 106 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay. On due consideration

2 Shri Sai Mining Service

of the said reasons, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. We find that the delay is not intentional and therefore placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.

3.

The sole grievance of the assessee is that ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by Assessing Officer u/s.69A of the Act for the gross business receipts of Rs.3,56,88,275/-.

4.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee failed to appear before the Assessing Officer resulting into passing of Best Judgment Assessment u/s.144 of the Act and that gross contract receipts have been added to the income. Further, in the appeal before ld.CIT(A) assessee failed to get any relief as ld.CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has not furnished any financial statements, such as expense details, profit calculations, ledger accounts, bill or contracts to determine the correct taxable income. We further note that the assessee which is a partnership firm is carrying on the business for last many years. Books of account have been maintained for preceding three financial years and are duly audited u/s.44AB of the Act. Audit reports are placed at pages 11 to 52 of the paper book. Gross profit and net profit chart is placed at page 53 of the paper book indicating that the net profit rate of the assessee is ranging from 3 to 6%. Admittedly, for the year under consideration, the assessee has not got the books of account audited. However, considering the prayer of the assessee that 3 Shri Sai Mining Service

since similar nature of business has been carried out, the assessee deserves an opportunity to place the details of expenses incurred before the ld. Assessing Officer and further to prove that similar business activity has been carried out in past therefore only the profit embedded in such business receipts needs to be taxed.

5.

We thus find merit in the contention of ld. Counsel for the assessee and deem it appropriate to remit the issue back to the file of ld. Juri ictional Assessing Officer for deciding afresh and also direct the Assessing Officer to give credit of tax deducted at source on the basis of Form 26AS statement issued under the PAN of assessee. Needless to mention that ld.JAO in the set aside proceedings shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and consider the documents/evidences to be filed by 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, failing which the ld.JAO shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Impugned order is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 19th day of May, 2026. (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ंक / Dated : 19th May, 2026. Satish

4 Shri Sai Mining Service

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 →