SACHIN JADHAV,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(2), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 941/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Ld. CIT(A). However assessee failed to respond to the notices of hearing as a result Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) and dismissed the assessee's appeal. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds of appeal challenging the addition made by Ld. CIT(A) at Rs.10,11,177/-4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had explanations for the credits (like sale of jewellery, loans, reimbursements) but failed to submit them to the AO or CIT(A), partly due to issues with notices during the Covid-19 period. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee a proper opportunity to present all relevant details.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, declared an income of Rs. 1,87,960/-, which was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 10,11,177/- as unexplained credit under Section 68, assessing the total income at Rs. 11,99,140/-. The CIT(A) affirmed this addition and dismissed the assessee's appeal due to non-appearance during the appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unexplained credit under Section 68 was sustainable due to the assessee's failure to present supporting documents to lower authorities, and if the case should be remanded for de novo adjudication to provide an opportunity to furnish explanations.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH,

Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Jadhav
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Hearing: 08.09.2025

Assessee by : Shri Sachin Jadhav (Assessee) Revenue by : Shri Manoj Tripathi (through virtual) Date of hearing : 08.09.2025 Date of : 12.09.2025 pronouncement आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 07.02.2025 framed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and declared income of Rs. 1,87,960/- filed on 19.09.2017 which was selected for scrutiny through CASS by valid serving of notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. After going through the details furnished during the course of assessment proceedings Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) observed that assessee has not explained the source of credit deposit amounting to Rs. 10,11,177/- and accordingly made the addition for the said amount and assessed income at Rs. 11,99,140/-

3.

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A). However assessee failed to respond to the notices of hearing as a result Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds of appeal

challenging the addition made by Ld. CIT(A) at Rs. 10,11,177/-

4. During the course of hearing the assessee was himself present before this Tribunal and he submitted that he possess complete details to explain the source of alleged credit which mainly include reimbursement of expenses at Rs. 1,53,024/-, Rs. 3,50,000/- received from Mr. Laxman Sandipan Pawar, Rs. 2,77,000/- received from sale of jewellery, Rs. 35,486/- received from Aspire Home Finance now known as Motilal Oswal, Rs. 42,092/- received from Teamless Services and Rs. 22,360/- from Kokuyo Camlin Ltd. And Rs. 20,000/- as withdrawal from Bank Account. He submitted that given an opportunity he shall file all these details before the Assessing Officer (AO). He also submitted that all these details stands duly enclosed with the appeal set running from page 27 to 56.

5. On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities.

6. I have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before me. I note that the assessee is an individual and his main source of Income is from salary received from MSWIPE Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Ld. AO has made additions u/s 68 as unexplained credit at Rs. 10,11,177/- In the appellant proceedings before Ld. CIT(A), assessee failed to appear and one of the reason for non appearance is that notice of hearing were mostly given during the Covid-19 pandemic restriction period. Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non appearance and affirmed the addition before him. The assessee has referred to various details placed on record and has submitted that the source of alleged credits is mainly from sale of gold jewellery, loans from relatives, reimbursement of travelling allowance, other minor credits from past deposits and withdrawal from Bank. I note that the assessee has furnished requisite details which seems to have not been filed before the lower authorities.

7.

Therefore considering the facts that assessee failed to appear before Ld. CIT(A) and also failed to furnish the details to Ld. AO, in the interest of justice and being fair to both the parties I deem it appropriate to restore the issues raised on merits in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be given to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal

raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

8. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 12th day of September, 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 →