DILIP RAMCHANDRA MOHITE,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1631/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 November 2025AY 2018-19Bench: ld.CIT(A) but then failed to avail the opportunities provided by ld.CIT(A). In the circumstance, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by observing as under :4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, noting the absence of the assessee and lack of proper documentation, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting one last opportunity. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-submission of documentary evidence regarding expenses claimed. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) and also before the ITAT, despite notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-submission of documentary evidence, and if the assessee should be granted another opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 142(1),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Shri Udol Raj Singh
Hearing: 11.11.2025Pronounced: 12.11.2025

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The captioned appeals at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 are directed against the order dated 14.08.2024 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi emanating out of Assessment Order dated 06.04.2021 passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

When the cases called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeals with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and material placed on record.

3.

We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and on perusal of the appeals with his assistance, it was brought to notice of the Bench that assessee has filed appeals online and two numbers have been allotted namely 1632/PUN/2025 for the same assessment year. Since both the appeals pertain to the same assessment year, we treat the latter appeal as duplicate and dismiss the same as ‘Infructuous’.

Rs.1,63,38,430/- declared in the return filed on 28.03.2019. Case selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS and valid statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. Assessee has provided reply and ld. Assessing Officer made addition of the expenses at Rs.23,85,290/- on the ground that “assessee has made only partial submission and has not proved that the expenditure incurred is properly accounted or not. In the absence of unsatisfactory explanation, the expenditure of Rs.23,85,290/- is hereby added to the income of the assessee”. Assessee challenged the addition by way of filing appeal before ld.CIT(A) but then failed to avail the opportunities provided by ld.CIT(A). In the circumstance, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by observing as under : “8. The appellant has claimed that the expenses amounting to Rs.23,85,290/- made through credit card are duly accounted in the relevant books of accounts. It has also been claimed that most of the payments were made through banking channels and only on 4 occasions, cash was paid. It has also been claimed that on each occasion, cash payment was less than Rs.50,000/-. The appellant has also stated that all relevant documents were also submitted before the AO. I have considered this submission of the appellant. It is seen from the assessment order that the AO has given a categorical finding that requisite documents for substantiating that the payments made through credit card are accounted for in the books, were not submitted before him. During the appellate proceedings, although the appellant has claimed that he filed relevant documents before the AO, but no documentary evidence for same has been furnished before me. In view of the categorical findings of the AO, the claim of the appellant cannot be accepted in the absence of any documentary evidence. Further, the appellant has not filed any explanation in spite of repeated opportunities. In the absence of any explanation/evidence, the addition of Rs.23,85,290/- made by the AO is upheld. The grounds no. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the appellant stand DISMISSED.”

5.

On going through the above finding, it is ostensible that there is no representation on behalf of the assessee and in absence of filing requisite details as called for, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal exparte qua the assessee. Further, assessee by way of grounds of appeal before this Tribunal assailed that detailed online submission made on 09.03.2021 has not been considered before passing of the assessment order.

6.

Under these given facts and circumstances and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee. We therefore remit back all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 12th day of November, 2025.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →