RAMCHANDRA DHANUSKAR (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE JYOTI DHANUSKAR),NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 86/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 October 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) correctly noted the assessee's non-compliance with notices and the consequent ex-parte decision, the assessee's explanation for non-compliance, citing circumstances beyond their control, could not be entirely overruled. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of evidence in adjudication and noted that the assessee had filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, which was placed in the paper book. Considering that evidence plays a vital role and the assessee should not suffer for non-filing of material information, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order of the CIT(A). To meet the ends of justice, the disputed issue along with the additional evidence was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee with adequate opportunity of hearing and for the assessee to cooperate in submitting information. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ramchandra Dhanuskar (Legal Heir of Late Jyoti Dhanuskar), filed an appeal against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, which sustained an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for Assessment Year 2013-14. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 after receiving information about investments made by the assessee with M/s. Wasankar Wealth Management Pvt. Ltd. The assessee failed to comply with notices issued by the AO, leading to an assessment under Section 144 based on available information. The CIT(A) also dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO under Section 69A, overlooking the circumstances beyond the assessee's control that led to non-compliance with notices during appellate proceedings? The assessee contended that the non-compliance with notices before the CIT(A) was not deliberate but due to circumstances beyond their control. They argued that they have a strong case on merits and sought admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, supported by a paper book. The assessee also claimed that the evidence plays a vital role in decision-making and that they should not suffer due to non-filing of material information. The revenue, represented by the Senior DR, supported the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :: NAGPUR

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Hearing: 07.10.2026Pronounced: 12.10.2026

The assessee has filed the appeal against the ex-parte order of CIT(A)/NFAC Delhi passed u/sec147 r.w.s144 of the Act sustaining the addition u/sec69A of the Act made by the Assessing Officer .

2.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal and the assessee has filed the affidavit of the assessee for condonation of delay. On consideration of facts and information mentioned in the affidavit, there is a reasonable cause explained and the Ld. DR. has no specific objections. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that income tax department has received information that the assessee has made investments with M/s.Wasankar Wealth Management Pvt. Ltd. valu of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the F.Y.2012-13 and the assessee LR of Late Jyoti Dhanuskar)

has not filed the return of income for A.Y.2013-14.The Assessing Officer (A.O) has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and followed the due process of law and issued notice u/sec. 148 of the Act. Further notice u/sec 142(1) of the Act was issued from time to time calling for explanations in respect of investments and there was no compliance. The A.O has also issued show cause and there was no response from the assessee. The A.O find that the assessee has not made submissions on the disputed issues in spite of providing adequate opportunities of hearing and finally the A.O considering the information available on record has invoked the provisions of section 144 of the Act and made addition of unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs.10,00,000/- and passed the order u/sec147 r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 23.03.2022. 4. Aggrieved by the 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 Assessing officer and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

5.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. A.R has restricted his submissions that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO overlooking the information of the assessment proceedings. The Ld.AR mentioned that non-compliance of notices before the CIT(A) is not a wanton act but the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Further, Ld LR of Late Jyoti Dhanuskar)

A.R. submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and has filed an application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 Of ITAT rules and substantiated the submissions with paper book. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

6.

Heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima facie, the 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 dismissed the appeal ex-parte confirming the action of the AO. Whereas the CIT(A) has issued notices of hearing on various dates referred at Para 4 of the CIT(A) order but there was no response and thus, the CIT(A) came to the conclusion that the assessee is not interested and decided the appeal based on the information available on record. The Ld.AR mentioned that the non- compliance to the notices in the appellate proceedings was neither deliberate nor intentional, but circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the addition u/sec69A of the Act made by the AO and there could be various reasons for non-appearance which cannot be overruled. Further the assessee has filed an application for admission of addition evidences under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules placed at page 2 to 37 of the paper book substantiating the sources of investment and the evidences play a very important role in decision proceedings,

Therefore making in the adjudicating considering the facts, circumstances and additional evidences, the assessee should not suffer for non filing of material information, as the evidences play a vital role in LR of Late Jyoti Dhanuskar)

decision making and admit the additional evidence. Accordingly, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and to meet the ends of justice, restore the disputed issue along with the evidences to the file of the assessing officer to verify and adjudicate afresh on merits and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information. And, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th October, 2026. PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Pune, Dated: 12th October, 2026 vr/- आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अिीिार्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, “SMC” बेंच, नागपूर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Nagpur. गार्डफ़ाइि / Guard File. 5. ////

आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER, Vukkem Rambabu Rambabu Date: 2026.10.13 10:33:09 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →