Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is an individual whose case was selected for scrutiny during the demonetization period. Information in the AIMS module indicated cash deposits in a bank account without filing a return of income. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte after the assessee did not comply with show-cause notices.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that the assessee was not properly served notices and did not get an opportunity to present their case, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) order passed ex-parte without proper notice and opportunity to the assessee should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.
Sections Cited
142(1), 144, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year : 2017-18 Chandrakant Krishna Pawar, Vs. ITO, Ward-4, Sangli. 2nd Floor, Pawar Building, Sangliwadi, Tal. Miraj- 416416. PAN : AAYPP1161H Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 25.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 13.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.05.2024 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-7, Kolkata [‘Ld.CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2017-18.
There is delay of 215 days in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the affidavit for condonation that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay of 215 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. On the basis of information available in AIMS module it was found that during demonetization period the assessee has deposited cash in his bank account maintained with Bank of Maharashtra and has not furnished his return of income. Therefore, the case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices u/s 142(1) of the IT Act were issued. The assessee furnished certain information with regard to bank account which pertains to partnership firm. The Assessing Officer issued final show-cause notice to the assessee to explain the details of deposit of Rs.4,22,000/- and also asked to show-cause as to why the amount of Rs.7,82,058/- should not be treated as his business income for the period under consideration. The assessee did not comply to the above show-cause notice. Since no reply was furnished by the assessee the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the IT Act by determining the total income at Rs.12,34,660/-. The above assessed income includes an amount of Rs.4,22,600/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act and an amount of Rs.7,82,058/- added as business income received in the shape of interest on capital and remuneration from the partnership firm and Rs.30,000/- towards business income.
Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
5. It is this above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted that the notices of hearing issued by Ld. CIT(A) were not received by the assessee which resulted in ex-parte order by Ld. CIT(A). Ld. AR further submitted that each and every details regarding deposit in his bank account is available with him and if one opportunity is provided to the assessee, he is in a position to substantiate the grounds of appeal
before Ld. CIT(A).
7. Ld. DR appearing from side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same.
8. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is the sole request of the assessee to set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and to provide one more opportunity of hearing so that he can produce documents/evidences in support of its contentions. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, and without going into merits of the case we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file with a direction to decide the appeal afresh as per