DEEPAK SARDA,PUNE, MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2), PUNE, MAHARASHTRA
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
PER R.K. PANDA, V.P:
The above batch of three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 09.04.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2014-15. In ITA No.1578/PUN/2025 the assessee has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the various additions made by the Assessing Officer. In ITA No.1579/PUN/2025 the assessee has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC partly sustaining the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In ITA No.1580/PUN/2025 the assessee has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- for not getting the accounts audited u/s 44AB of the I T
Act, 1961. For the sake of convenience, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 29.07.2015 declaring total income of Rs.2,85,200/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under CASS on account of the following reasons:
a)
Large investment in property as compared to total income b)
Low capital gain with respect to sale consideration (higher of AIR and ITR)
Accordingly statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. However, there was no response from the side of the assessee to these notices as well as the subsequent notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer, therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment on the basis of material available on record. The Assessing Officer obtained information u/s 133(6) of the Act from the bank and collected the details from the office of the Sub-