MRS NEHA VITTHAL DIMBLE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-3(3), PUNE, PUNE
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE
BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT
AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1223/PUN/2025
धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16
Mrs. Neha Vitthal Dimble,
S No. 54, Flat No. B-04,
Shri Siddhi Vinayak Angan,
Narge Ambegaon, Pune-411041
PAN : AMLPD1520D
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer,
Ward – 3(3), Pune
अपीलार्थी / Appellant
प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent
Assessee by :
Shri Abhay A Avchat
Department by :
Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore
Date of hearing :
04-09-2025
Date of Pronouncement :
26-09-2025
आदेश / ORDER
PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM :
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated
20.01.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi
[“CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
“On facts and circumstances and in law,
1. The learned AO has erred in making addition of Rs. 66,65,000/- in respect of cash deposits in bank account of assessee as unexplained money under section 69A r. w. s. 115BBE and the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the same.
2. The learned AO has erred in making addition of Rs. 14,08,073/- in respect of purchase of motor vehicle as unexplained expenditure under section 69C r. w. s. 115BBE and the learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming the same.
3. The learned AO has erred in making additions and disallowances in assessee's case since the financial transactions which are subject matter of addition, belonged to assessee's husband Mr. Vitthal Dimble. In his case, the AO has already made the similar additions. So, the prayer is to delete the same in assessee's case.
4. The learned CIT Appeals has erred in dismissing assessee's appeal without affording adequate opportunity of being heard and without hearing it on merits.
ITA No.1223/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16
The Assessee prays before your honour to afford and allow her an opportunity of being heard on merits of the case before lower authorities. 6. The learned CIT A did not set aside the matter of additions and disallowances in the order to the AO despite the assessment order was ex parte. 7. Assessee's case was reopened by not following the due procedure of law and thus the assessment is bad is law since the notice u/s 148 was issued by the JAO and not by the FAO and the case being falling under the faceless regime. 8. The assessee prays to allow any other relief under income tax law. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, revise, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.”
Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is an individual. She did not file her return of income for AY 2015-16. Based on the information available from the INSIGHT Portal it was found that the following income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant AY 2015-16: Sl. No. Description of information Source Amount received 1 Deposited cash in saving bank account HDC Bank Pvt. Ltd. Rs.66,65,000/- 2 Sale/Purchase of motor vehicles Kothari Cars Pvt. Ltd. Rs.14,08,073/- 3 Credit Card bill payment HDFC Bank Pvt. Ltd. Rs.2,58,547/- 4 Total amount involved
Rs.83,31,620/-
1 Accordingly, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) issued a show cause notice u/s 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on 21.03.2022 after obtaining prior approval of the specified authority u/s 151 of the Act which was duly served upon the assessee. The assessee failed to respond to the show- cause issued u/s 148A(b) of the Act. The Ld. AO therefore proceeded to decide the case on the basis of material available on record and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 05.04.2022 by passing the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act. In response to the said notice under section 148, the assessee filed her return of income for AY 205-16. Further, the assessee filed only partial response to various notices issued by the Ld. AO during the reassessment proceedings which constrained the Ld. AO to complete the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 19.02.2024 at an assessed income of Rs.83,31,620/- by making addition of – (i) Rs. 66,65,000/- in respect of cash deposits in bank treating the same as unexplained money under section 69A; (ii) Rs.14,08,073/- in respect of purchase of motor vehicle treating the same as unexplained expenditure u/s 3
ITA No.1223/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16
69C and (iii) Rs.2,58,547/- in respect of credit card bill payment by the assessee treating it as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act.
Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in his appellate order observed that inspite of many opportunities granted, the assessee has not responded before him either by filing the reply nor seeked any adjournment. He was therefore of the opinion that the assessee does not want to pursue the appeal by filing the submissions and substantiate the grounds raised in the appeal. Thus, based on the material available on record, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC passed the impugned order allowing partial relief to the assessee by observing as under : “5. Findings and Decision: Ground No.1: The following grounds are taken without prejudice to each other. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer (AO) has erred in assessing income of Assessee at an amount of Rs. 85,31,770/-. Ground No.2 The learned AO has erred in making aggregate additions of Rs. 83,31,620/- to the total income of the Assessee. I have carefully examined the grounds raised by the appellant. It is the submission of the appellant (in the grounds of appeal) that the AO has erred in making aggregate additions to the total income of the assessee. However, neither in the Form No.35 nor in the absence of any submissions being uploaded, the appellant has established as to how the assessment order passed not proper. Merely raising a ground that the AO has erred in making aggregate additions to the total income of the assessee, without substantiating the claims made, does not make the order, as such, unless and otherwise it is proved with sufficient material evidence and the reasons thereof. From the submissions, it is seen that the appellant has miserably failed to substantiate the same with material evidence. Therefore, the grounds raised are dismissed. Ground No.3: Without considering facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in making addition of Rs 66,65,000/- in respect of cash deposits in saving bank account of the Assessee as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s 115BBE. The ground raised by the appellant has been carefully examined. From the assessment order, it is observed that the appellant has indeed responded, but only to seek further time/adjournment. It is seen that the appellant has miserably failed to substantiate her claim with documentary proof, if any. The AO has clearly brought out the opportunities afforded to the appellant with date(s) of issue of notice(s). responses, if any received etc. In this regard, relevant paras of the assessment order are reproduced below, for clarity (Page 9-10 of the assessment order): 4.6.7. On perusal of the reply submitted by the assessee it can be seen that assessee requested further adjournment in the issue and hasn't furnished any documentary evidences/ details requested vide 142(1) notice dated 19/10/2023 Considering the principals of natural justice, the assessee was given adjournment it fill 12/01/2024 and the same has been intimated to the assessee by issuing a letter on 29/12/2023. But no response was received from the assessee in the matter. Hence, a show cause was issued to provide the assessee an opportunity to show cause why proposed variation should not be made. However, no reply has been given by the assessee to the notice issued.
ITA No.1223/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16
Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidences which the assessee has failed to submit in support her claim, the assessment proceedings are proposed to be completed as follows:
4.6.8. CASH DEPOSITS: In the FY 2014-15, the assessee had made cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 66,65,000/- in her savings bank accounts (A/c No:
50100021247176 & 50100021247611) maintained in HDFC Bank Pvt. Ltd. Vide her reply dated 06/07/2023 the assessee has claimed that, during the FY 2014-
15, the HDFC Account A/c No. 50100021247176 was jointly held with her husband Shri. Vitthal Sakharam Dimble and the total cash deposits in both accounts were already considered as her husband's income while doing his assessment for the AY 2015-16. The assessee also submitted the assessment order and demand notice in the case of her husband for the AY 2015-16. However, on perusal of the assessment order in the case of Shri Vitthal
Sakharam Dimble for the AY 2015-16, it was noticed that he had never responded to any of the notices issued by the department and the assessment was completed ex-parte whereby raising a demand of Rs. 74,14,090/-Also, the assessee has failed to furnish any documentary evidence to prove that her husband Shri Vitthal Sakharam Dimble has accepted the assessment order passed and paid the tax. Accordingly, vide question number 6 of 142(1) notice dated 19/10/2023, the assessee was requested to furnish documentary evidence in support of her claim. However, the assessee again failed to submit the necessary documents as called vide 142(1) notice, instead requested for further adjournment. Even after providing ample of opportunities and time the assessee completely failed to prove her claim, therefore, available information and material/facts on record suggest that income of Rs 66,65,000/- chargeable to fax has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of Income Tax
Act, 1961 for the relevant assessment year. In the absence of any further response from the assessee, it is presumed that the assessee has no explanation to offer in the issue. Therefore, it is proposed to treat the amount of Rs.
66.65.000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A rws 115BBE of the Income Tax Act,
1961 and will be added to the total income for the AY 2015-16".
In the circumstances of the case, the appellant's contention that the cash deposits found both the accounts maintained with HDFC Bank Ltd (as discussed above) belonged to her husband and the total cash deposits in both accounts were already considered as her husband's income is not acceptable in view of the fact that the assessment had already been passed ex-parte in her husband's case by his AO on account of non-response to any notices issued to him and non- submission of any conclusive documentary proof thereof. In view of the fact that the appellant had been non-co-operative and non-responsive throughout the course of assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings, and in the given factual matrix, I am of the considered opinion that the AO has rightly brought to tax the cash deposits in both the accounts (as discussed above). Therefore, I have no reason to interfere with the findings/observations of the AO. The addition made by the AO is sustained and the ground raised is dismissed.
Ground No.4: Without considering facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in making addition of Rs. 14,08,073/- in respect of sale
/purchase of motor vehicle as unexplained expenditure under section 69C r.w.s
115BBE.
The ground raised is examined carefully. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO had given numerous opportunities to the assessee-appellant to respond to the notices issued and to submit documentary proof for the purchase/sale of the motor vehicle for an amount of Rs. 14,08,073/-. From the assessment order, it is observed that the appellant had not responded to any of the notices issued, albeit only for seeking for adjournment. The appellant has also not uploaded/submitted any concrete documentary proof for purchase/sale of the motor vehicle. Therefore, the AO was constrained to bring to tax the entire amount of Rs.14,08,073/- as the unexplained expenditure of the appellant u/s 69C r.w.s.
115BBE of the Act, 1961. The relevant para of the assessment order is reproduced below for clarity: (Page 10, Para 4.6.9):
ITA No.1223/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16
6.9. SALE/PURCHASE OF MOTOR VEHICLE: During the FY 2014-15, the assessee purchased a motor vehicle worth Rs. 14,08,073/- from Kothari Cars Pvt. Ltd. The assessee failed to submit any documentary evidences/details on source of purchase of car during the year under consideration even after getting ample of opportunities. Therefore, in the absence of any valid material evidence in the issue, it is proposed to treat Rs 14,08,073/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and will be added to the total income for the AY 2015-16". In the Statement of Facts while filing the appeal, the appellant has contended that she is either a joint account holder of vehicle purchased as a nominee only and is not directly involved in any financial transactions. The appellant further stated that the transactions based on which the income has been assessed are the transactions belonging to her husband i.e. Mr. Vitthal Dimble (PAN:AGZPD8712) and as such, chargeable in the hands of her husband. The appellant has not controverted this fact anywhere other than reiterating that she is only a joint account holder and has no bearing/responsibilities in the financial transactions as above. The appellant further stated that, at best, she is a nominee only and is not directly involved in any financial transactions. The contention of the appellant is not acceptable. According to the appellant, she is a salaried employee, employed as Lab Assistant at MSIHMCT, Pune, as such, in a responsible position to be aware of what she is doing. In conclusion, it is contended that the AO has followed due process of law while finalizing the assessment, keeping in view the principles of natural justice. In view of the fact that the appellant had been non-co-operative and non- responsive throughout the course of assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings, and in the given factual matrix, I am of the considered opinion that the AO has rightly treated the amount of Rs. 14,08,073/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C r.w.s. 115BBE. The appellant failed to substantiate that the motor vehicle belong to her husband, with proper documentary proof and in the absence of any valid material evidence, the AO brought the amount to tax. Therefore, I have no reason to interfere with the findings/observations of the AO. The addition made by the AO is sustained and the ground raised is dismissed. Ground No.5: Without considering facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred in making addition of Rs. 2,58,547/- in respect of credit card bill payment of the Assessee as unexplained expenditure under section 69C r.w.s 115BBE. I have carefully considered the ground raised by the appellant. The AO while passing the assessment order stated at Page 10, Para 4.6.10, as under: 4.6.10. CREDIT CARD BILL PAYMENT: The assessee had paid credit card bill to the tune of Rs. 2,58,547/- during the FY 2014-15. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was provided with ample of opportunities to explain the source of payment of the credit card bill, but failed to produce any valid documentary evidences/details which explains the source of payment of credit card bill. Therefore, in the absence of explanation on source of payment of credit card bills to the tune of Rs. 2,58,547/- during the year, the source of expenditure of Rs. 2,58,547/- remains unexplained and it is proposed to treat expenditure of Rs. 2,58,547/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and will be added to the total income for the AY 2015-16. The appellant in her Statement of Facts submitted while filing her appeal, contended that she is a salaried employee and the gross salary earned by her amounts to Rs.1,72,200/-. As such, the payment against the credit card bills of Rs.2,58,547/- was made out of such salary. The remaining amount of credit card bills was made out from previous year's savings and from husband's pocket. The appellant being a salaried employee, her contention is accepted as she has the required sources to meet out such expenditure. The contention of the appellant is accepted and the ground raised is allowed.
ITA No.1223/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16
Ground Nos.6 & 7 are interconnected to each other, as such, they are adjudicated together, as under :-
Ground No.6: The learned AO has erred in not considering the return filed by the Assessee u/s 148 for the year consideration.
Ground No.7: The AO has erred in making additions in case of assessee whereas the financial transactions for the year belong to assessee's husband Mr. Vitthal
Dimble.
The grounds raised by the appellant have been carefully considered. It is the submission of the appellant (in the grounds of appeal) that the AO has erred in not considering the return filed and making additions, whereas, the financial transactions for the year belong to assessee's husband Mr. Vitthal Dimble.
However, neither in the Form No.35 and in the absence of any submissions being uploaded, the appellant has established as to how the assessment order passed not proper.
Merely raising a ground that the AO has erred in making additions to the total income of the assessee and not considering the return filed, without substantiating the claims made, does not make the order, as such, unless and otherwise it is proved with sufficient material evidence and the reasons thereof.
From the submissions, it is seen that the appellant has miserably failed to substantiate the same with material evidence. Therefore, the grounds raised are dismissed.
Ground Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are interconnected to each other, as such, they are adjudicated together, as under-
Ground No.8: The re-assessment proceedings initiated in case of the Assessee are not in keeping with provisions of law and needs to be cancelled.
Ground No 9: The learned AO erred in passing the assessment order without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.
Ground No. 10: The learned AO has not considered the submissions made by the Assessee with respect to the re-assessment proceedings of the Assessee.
Ground No. 11:
The assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s.144
read with section 144B of the Act is not in keeping with the provisions of law and need to be cancelled.
Ground No. 12: The Assessment made under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law.
I have carefully examined the grounds raised as above by the appellant.
As observed by the AO in the assessment order (Pages 1 to 4) dated
19/02/2024, the appellant is an individual and resident who failed to file her return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16. Subsequently, the Department received information in the appellant's case from the INSIGHT PORTAL, which suggested that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the relevant A.Y. The information is that the appellant has deposited cash in Savings Bank Account in HDFC Bank Pvt Ltd to the tune of Rs.66,65,000/-. As can be seen from Page 2 of the Assessment Order, the AO has given sufficient and reasonable opportunities of being heard to the assessee-appellant considering the principles of natural justice. The dates are (i) Notice u/s 148 Dated 05.04.2022
(ii) Notice u/s 143(2) Dated 06.10.2023
(iii) Notice u/s 142(1) Dated 17.02.2023
(iv) AU-1 Letter dated 07.03.2023
(v) Letter to Assessee Dated 24.05.2023
ITA No.1223/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16
(vi) Issued Centralized Communicatgion NaFAC Dated 23.06.2023
(vii) Notice u/s 142(1) Dated 04.10.2023
(viii) Notice u/s 142(1) Dated 19.10.2023
(ix) Letter to Assessee Dated 20.12.2023
(x) Letter to Assessee Dated 29.12.2023
As can be seen in the 'remarks column' of the table in Page 2 of the Assessment Order, it is seen that the appellant has filed her return of income in response to Notice issued u/s 148 dated 05/04/2022. For most of the notices/letters issued, the assessee-appellant has responded, but only partially.
The appellant is seen to have not filed/uploaded the full details as called for by the AO. Therefore, the AO was constrained to afford opportunities to the assessee-appellant as above. As information was received by the AO in the case of the assessee-appellant from the INSIGHT PORTAL, that there is substantial cash deposited in her bank account, which suggested that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Therefore, in view of the fact that initially the appellant had not filed her return of income, only after issue of notice u/s 148, the assessee-appellant filed her return of income. Therefore, the reason(s) that, (1) re-assessment proceedings initiated in case of the Assessee are not in keeping with provisions of law, (2) passing the assessment order without affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the Assessee, (3) assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act is not in keeping with the provisions of law and (4) Assessment made under section 147
read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law, does not arise and hence rejected.
As regards the issue of learned AO has not considered the submissions made by the Assessee, with respect to the re-assessment proceedings of the Assessee is concerned, I have carefully examined the Assessment Order dated
19/02/2024. On going through the assessment order, it is seen that the appellant has responded partially only by seeking further time to gather details or sought adjournment. Therefore, the grounds raised, as above, are dismissed.
Ground No.13:
The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.
This is a general ground raised that does not require adjudication.
6. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is treated as partly allowed.”
Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds of appeal relate thereto.
The Ld. AR, at the outset submitted that the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC has not decided the appeal on merits on account of assessee’s failure to submit the requisite details before him. But the non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was not deliberate. He submitted that in Form 35, email id of assessee’s husband was mentioned. Only two notices were issued dated 06.12.2024 and 13.12.2024 in short span of 7 days and the husband of the assessee was on tour during that time due to which these notices could not be responded by the assessee. The assessee came to know of the impugned exparte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC only on receipt of the same. He
ITA No.1223/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16
further submitted that the written submission filed by the assessee during the assessment proceedings have not been considered by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. He submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate her case by filing the all the requisite details/ documentary evidence before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.
He, therefore, prayed that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC or Ld. AO as deemed fit by the Bench, to decide the issues afresh on merits after affording one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily opposed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted that despite number of opportunities granted, the assessee never bothered to make any submission before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and filed only partial response before the Ld. AO. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC should be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee should be dismissed.
We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It is an admitted fact that despite number of opportunities granted, the assessee did not make any submission before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC. The Ld. AR has explained the reason for such non-compliance as sated above. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has allowed partial relief to the assessee for the reasons reproduced in the preceding paragraph. We find that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not decided the appeal on merits of the case due to lack of any submissions made by the assessee during the appellate proceedings before him. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate her case by filing the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC.
Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into the merits of the appeal, we deem it proper to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC and restore the matter back to his file for adjudication afresh on merits as per fact and law, after giving one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to provide correct/active email id to the Department and remain vigilant in receiving the notices and file its reply/ make submissions thereof on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing
ITA No.1223/PUN/2025, AY 2015-16
which the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26th September, 2025. (R.K. Panda)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 26th September, 2025. रदि
आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, “ए” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File.
//सत्य दपि प्रदि////
आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,
िररष्ठ दनजी सदचि / Sr. Private Secretary
आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune