ARJUN ANANDA KHOT,MHASWAD vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SATARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2900/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 October 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him, considering the explanation provided by the assessee regarding his brother's illness and death. The Tribunal adopted a justice-oriented approach and set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A). The issues raised in the appeal were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the department, update contact details, and respond on appointed hearing dates without seeking adjournments unless necessary. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 79 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, finding sufficient cause for the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Arjun Ananda Khot, is an individual engaged in the business of sub-dealing in Honda Motorcycles and Scooters India Pvt. Ltd., and also has agricultural income. For Assessment Year 2016-17, the assessee filed a revised return on 31.01.2025 declaring an income of Rs.3,82,770/-. The case was selected for scrutiny due to cash deposits of Rs.58,21,090/- on the Insight portal, which were not offered to tax. Proceedings under Section 147 were initiated. The Assessing Officer (AO) was not satisfied with the assessee's explanation that the deposits were out of business receipts and audited books of accounts. The AO treated Rs.1,23,80,882/- as unexplained money under Section 69A, determining the income at Rs.1,27,63,652/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 36 days, without condoning the delay. The present appeal is filed by the assessee before the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) when the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay, and if so, what is the appropriate course of action? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to the hospitalization and subsequent death of his brother. He prayed for an opportunity to substantiate the source of cash deposits. The assessee also sought an opportunity to present his case on merits before the CIT(A). Revenue's contention: The Revenue did not record any specific contention regarding the delay or the merits of the case in the judgment. The judgment notes that the Ld. DR was heard regarding the condonation of delay for the appeal before the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH ‘A’, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Pronounced: 12.10.2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, पुणेपीठ�, पुणे INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE BENCH ‘A’, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 2900/PUN/2026 (िनधा�रणवष�/AssessmentYear:2016-17) ARJUN ANANDA KHOT DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, A/P MHASAWAD MHASWAD, MHASWAD, MAN, SATARA 415509, SATARA-415001, Vs. SATARA-415509, MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA अपीलाथ�Appellant ��यथ� Respondent Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AJUPK3872B अपीलाथ��ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Suhas Kulkarni ��यथ��ारा/Respondentrepresented by: Shri Uodol Raj Singh सुनवाईक�तारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 07.10.2026 घोषणाक�तारीख/Date of pronouncement: 12.10.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 07th January, 2026 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. There is delay of 79 days in filing of the present appeal. In this regard, it was submitted by the assessee that the notices issued by ld.CIT(A) were sent on the email id of the Tax Consultant but the same could not be accessed by him and subsequently when the order dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay was passed the same was also not informed by the consultant to the assessee, however, when the dismissal of the appeal came in the knowledge of the assessee, he immediately filed an appeal before the Tribunal. After going through the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit, wherein above facts are stated, we are satisfied that the applicant wasprevented by sufficient &

ITA No.2900/PUN/2026 ARJUN ANANDA KHOT reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. Tersely stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business as a sub-dealer in Honda Motorcycles and Scooters India Pvt. Ltd. and also derives agricultural income. Return of income for the year under consideration was filed on 25.08.2016 and subsequently it was revised in the return filed in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act on 31.01.2025 declaring income of Rs.3,82,770/-. Case selected for scrutiny based on the information available on the Insight portal that assessee has made cash deposits of Rs.58,21,090/- and has not offered the same in the Income Tax Return. Proceedings u/s.147 of the Act was carried out by issuance of notices u/s.148, 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Assessee submitted the reply stating that the deposits are out of business receipts and the books of accounts are duly audited and earned commission/brokerage of sale of vehicles. Some of the receipts include sale of spare parts of vehicles. However, ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation so tendered by the assessee in light of Dealership Agreement (Letter of Intent) and treated the sum of Rs.1,23,80,882/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act, determining the income at Rs.1,27,63,652/- as against the returned income of Rs.3,82,770/-. 4. Assessee challenged the additions by filing an appeal before ld.CIT(A) but the appeal was delayed by 36 days. Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine, without condoning the said delay and now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal assailing the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find in the instant case ld. Assessing Officer made addition of cash deposits to the tune of Rs.1,23,80,822/- as the assessee has failed to furnish satisfactory

ITA No.2900/PUN/2026 ARJUN ANANDA KHOT explanation u/s.69A of the Act. However, assessee could not get any relief from ld.CIT(A) as the delay of 36 days in filing of the appeal before has not been condoned, without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merit. 6. Coming to the reasons for filing the appeal belatedly before ld.CIT(A), we find that the assessee has furnished explanation stating that at the relevant point of time his brother fell sick, hospitalized and unfortunately passed away. In view of this fact, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay. Therefore, the assessee prayed for granting one more opportunity so as to enable the assessee to substantiate the source of cash deposits to the satisfaction of the authorities. 7. Under these given facts and circumstances and adopting justice oriented approach, we deem it proper to set aside the impugned order and restore the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Assessee is directed to cooperate with the Department in the set aside proceedings and update her registered email id and contract details on the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to respond on the appointed date of hearing before ld.CIT(A) without seeking any adjournment unless otherwise required. Impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A) is set aside and grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th October, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 12th October, 2026 Sujeet/DOC Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.10.13 11:41:59 +05'30'

ITA No.2900/PUN/2026 ARJUN ANANDA KHOT Copy to: ARJUN ANANDA KHOT, A/P MHASAWAD MHASWAD, MHASWAD, MAN, 1 SATARA 415509, SATARA-415509, MAHARASHTRA DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 2 INCOME TAX OFFICE, SATARA, SATARA-415001, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, PUNEBENCH 5 GUARD FILE आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →