DR. RAVINDRA JAGANNATH NIKAM,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(2), PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the revenue had not demonstrated successful service of notice during remand proceedings. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, remanding the issue back to the Assessing Officer.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 4,26,173/- on account of unexplained cash deficit. Additional evidence was furnished to the CIT(A) and remanded to the AO. The assessee claims they could not attend the remand proceedings and were not given a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was denied principles of natural justice during remand proceedings and if the addition was made without a proper opportunity to be heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-1, Pune dated 28.07.2018 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under :- “1. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made by the A.O. U/Sec.69A only on the ground that appellant had not responded to the Remand Report since he has complied with the notices and further erred in not providing the one more opportunity to the appellant.
The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,26,173/- made by the A.O. u/s 69A of the Act on the ground that the appellant had failed to satisfactorily explain the source of unexplained cash deficit disregarding the submissions and evidences given by the appellant.
The appellant may kindly be permitted to add to or alter any of grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary.”
Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this appeal may be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for want of compliance of principles of natural justice. Referring to the fact of the case, ld. Counsel submitted that there is an allegation on deposit of cash in the bank account of the assessee. In the assessment, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.4,26,173/-. When the additional evidences furnished before the CIT(A) and the same were remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer for his comments. The Assessing Officer could not conduct the remand proceedings meaningfully. Assessee could not attend the remand proceedings. Thus, the remand report was submitted to the CIT(A) by Assessing Officer without hearing the assessee eventually. Therefore, the assessee did not have the opportunity to rebut allegation of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). On these facts, he requested for remanding this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer which, in my view, is the fair request. I find that the revenue has no evidence to demonstrate that the Assessing Officer successfully served the notice in the remand proceedings. It is obvious that the assessee being a physical in body in profession and Assessing Officer needs to take extra efforts to serve the notice meaningfully and assess the income of the assessee as per law. Accordingly, the same is granted. In the remand proceedings, the Assessing Officer should grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and entertain the additional evidences, if any, for assessing the said cash deposit issue and the sources thereof. The Assessing Officer shall pass a speaking order as per law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 01st day of March, 2019. (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; "दनांक Dated : 01st March, 2019. Sujeet आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant;
""यथ" / The Respondent;
The CIT(A)-1, Pune;
The Pr. CCIT, Pune; िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “एक-सद"य मामला” /
DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"यािपत "ित //// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026