PANDURANG KESHAV PANDIT,NEW PANVEL vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE

Registry has informed that there is delay of 377 days in filing of ITA No.2614/PUN/2024 before this Tribunal. Main reason stated for the delay is on account of the professional who was looking after the Taxation and Appellate work could not file the appeal within the time limit and affidavit of Mr. Appellant by : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Respondent by : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date of hearing : 08.12.2025 Date of pronouncement : 16.12.2025

Having gone through the reasons giving rise to the delay in filing of appeal, we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We note that the delay is not intentional and assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal with a delay. We therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 377 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

We will first take up ITA No.2614/PUN/2024. Assessee has filed the following modified grounds :

The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the learned AO in initiating the reassessment proceedings on the assessee by merely relying on the information received from the DDIT (Inv.), Unit-4(1), Mumbai without cross-verifying the subject information and if the same are correct for the purpose of initiating the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act. He failed to appreciate the detailed explanations provided by the assessee in ITA No.2614/PUN/2024 and Pandurang Keshav Pandit

The learned CIT(A) as well as the learned AO erred on facts and in law in not providing the opportunity for cross-examination of the individual who's statement was relied upon for the purpose of the subject reassessment proceedings even after specific request from the assessee in this regard. He failed to appreciate the settled position in law that any adverse material collected at the back of the assessee when not confronted and that if any statement is recorded by the AO at the back of the assessee and if such statement is not allowed for cross-examination on behalf of the assessee, such material cannot be considered against the assessee and such material/statement cannot be read in as an evidence against the assessee.

The assessee craves leave to add, alter or remove all or any of the ground."

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Civil Lawyer and income of Rs.38,02,270/- declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 e-filed on 16.10.2015. Return has been processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act on 16.04.2017. Subsequently, based on the information received from Deputy Director (Investigation) Wing-4, Mumbai regarding the alleged escapement of income towards the cash of Rs.56,80,060/- paid by the assessee to Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of Flat No.3501, Tower 8 of Runwal Greens, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued. In response, the assessee filed the return of income on 06.11.2019 declaring same income, i.e. Rs.38,02,270/-.

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A). However, assessee failed to make any submission to the notices fixing the dates of hearing on 08.01.2021, 06.07.2023 and 23.08.2023 and therefore ld.CIT(A) affirmed the action of the Assessing Officer and also referred to the decision of Coordinate Bench, Delhi in the case of Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 88 ITD 96 stating that any statement of a person who is one of the parties of the transactions/transactions has evidentiary value and cannot be ignored.

Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee firstly submitted that the assessee has not made the alleged payment to Mr. Subodh Runwal. He submitted that assessee has never met Mr. Subodh Runwal and has always dealt with the Sales team. He further stated that assessee has not been provided the copy of ITA No.2614/PUN/2024 and Pandurang Keshav Pandit

On the other hand, ld. DR stated that assessee has never asked for copy of statement of Mr. Subodh Runwal recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act nor the assessee has filed any application for providing opportunity of cross examination and therefore at this stage such plea could not be taken. On merits, he placed reliance on the finding of both the lower authorities.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Assessee has purchased a Flat at Panvel in Project Runwal Greens bearing Flat No.3501, Tower 8 constructed by Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. Sale consideration value as per the Registered deed Rs.1,90,19,540/-. Ld. AO based on the entry found in the seized material during the course of search carried out in the case of Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. u/s.132 of the Act observed that the agreed consideration is Rs.2.47 crore and the difference amount which is appearing

Before going into merits of the case, ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised the legal issue stating that the AO prior to making the addition in the hands of assessee based on third party statement ought to have given a copy of statement of Mr. Subodh Runwal recorded u/s.132 of the Act and also should have provided the opportunity of cross examination. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Andaman Timber Dhadda in Income Tax Appeal No.197/2012 dated 31.07.2017 and also the decision of Coordinate Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of Ratnadeep Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. ITO – ITA Nos. 1490 and 1491/Ahd/2025 dated 06.11.2025. 12. We on going through the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case Ratnadeep Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. ITO (supra) find that the reference made to the judicial precedents including that of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE (supra) and while adjudicating similar issue of the alleged on-money towards the purchase of immovable property has observed as under : “Insofar as the plea of the appellant that it was not allowed to cross- examine the dealers whose statements were relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority in passing the orders, the Tribunal rejected its plea in the following manner: - “6. The plea of no cross examination granted to the various dealers would not help the appellant case since the examination of the dealers would not bring out any material which would not be in the possession of the appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex factory prices remain static. Since we are not upholding and applying the ex factory

In light of the above decision, we note that in the above case of Ratnadeep Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. ITO (supra), assessee had requested for the opportunity of cross examination and also the copy of statement recorded u/s.132 of the Act but the same were not provided which resulted into quashing of the assessment order. However, in the instant case, there is no evidence which can prove that the assessee has requested for such opportunity of cross examination or has made any application for providing the statement of Mr. Subodh Runwal which was given u/s.132 of the Act during the course of search and has been relied on by ld. AO.

During the course of hearing before this Tribunal, ld. Counsel for the assessee was asked as to whether any opportunity of cross examination was requested to which he fairly submitted that assessee has not made any request but an opportunity may be granted to assessee and necessary direction may be given to the ld.JAO for giving the copies of statement recorded and provide opportunity of cross examination of Mr. Subodh Runwal so that the assessee can substantiate the case on merits. Ld. DR has not objected to this contention made by ld. Counsel for the assessee.

We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of ld. Juri ictional Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication of the issue in light of our observations made hereinabove and also to provide the assessee with the ITA No.2614/PUN/2024 and Pandurang Keshav Pandit

ITA No.1996/PUN/2025 relates to penalty appeal which is dependent upon the additions made by ld. AO. Since we have already restored the quantum additions raised in ITA No.2614/PUN/2024 (supra) to the file of ld. JAO the penalty being consequential is also restored back to the file of Ld. JAO who shall first decide the quantum issue and if any addition is made, then decide the penalty in accordance with law. Impugned order is set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune.

गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,