PANDURANG KESHAV PANDIT,PANVEL, MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DCIT, PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL, PANVEL, MAHARASHTRA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the assessee had not explicitly requested for cross-examination of a key witness, but allowed the opportunity to be granted by the AO. The quantum addition and consequential penalty were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee purchased a flat and the AO made an addition of Rs. 56,80,060/- on account of alleged cash payment (on-money). The CIT(A) upheld the addition ex-parte as the assessee failed to appear. The assessee appealed to the ITAT.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the AO based on seized material without providing an opportunity for cross-examination of the witness violates principles of natural justice. Whether the penalty levied is sustainable when the quantum addition is restored.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 69,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 271(1)(c),Section 132
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE1,335 citing62 Taxmann.com 3 · 2015 · SC
- Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.451 citing2 SCC 107 · 1987 · SC
- Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh267 citing2025 INSC 382 · 2025 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
PER DR. MANISH BOARD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeals at the instance of appellant pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 are directed against the separate orders dated 06.09.2023 and dated 30.06.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out Assessment order dated 15.11.2019 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act and Penalty order dated 10.02.2025 passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.
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 w
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Pandurang Keshav Pandit, New Panvel vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel…Pune16 Dec 2025Remanded
Also relies on Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the assessee had not explicitly requested for cross-examination of a key witness, but allowed the opportunity to be granted by the AO. The quantum addit...
- Rajrshi Shahu Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha… vs Income Tax Officer, IchalkaranjiPune12 Nov 2025Remanded
Also relies on Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a change in PAN as 'reasonable cause'. While acknowledging that the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest from cooperative banks is a ...
- Balkrishna Dnyanoba Khandve, Pune vs Central Circle 2(3), PunePune29 Oct 2025Remanded
Also relies on Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, citing justice-oriented approach and Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, granting the ass...
- Ganpat Vasant Randive, Village - Tungat… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, PandharpurPune10 Sept 2025Remanded
Also relies on Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's circumstances and lack of sufficient opportunity. The issues were remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing the a...
- Imrankhan Ismail Pathan, Dhule vs ITO Ward 1, DhulePune13 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal noted that the assessee neither participated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A), resulting in ex-parte orders. However, considering the totality of facts and the assessee's prayer...
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
