DILIP MADHAV ADLING,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal found that the ld. CIT(A) had passed the order prematurely, denying the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the ld. CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for a *de novo* adjudication, allowing the assessee to file submissions.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an income tax return for A.Y. 2017-18, which was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer made significant additions and assessed a higher income. The ld. CIT(A) partially confirmed these additions, reportedly due to the assessee's failure to provide details, and passed the order without waiting for the assessee's submission despite a short notice period.
What were the issues?
The primary issue concerned the ld. CIT(A) passing an appeal order without allowing the assessee sufficient time for submission, leading to a denial of natural justice. Secondary issues related to additions made under Sections 44AD, 69A, and 115BBE.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 44AD,Section 69A,Section 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], Delhi passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 22.07.2024 for the A.Y.2017-18 emanating from the Assessment Order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 25.12.2019. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
[A] “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in passing an Appeal Order on 22nd July 2024, When Hearing Notice issued u/s 250 dated 18th July 2024 having the due date of Written Submission as 25th July 2024. Accordingly, Appeal Order passed u/s 250 need to set aside.
2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in passing an Appeal Order without providing Remand Report to Assessee.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming addition of gross receipts of Rs. 17,67,479/- as business income instead of income element in receipt and without appreciating the provisions of Section 44AD.
4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in considering amount received from Assessees Son of Rs. 5,00,000/- as Unexplained Money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in considering Agricultural Receipts in Bank of Rs. 5,21,694/- as Unexplained Money U/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE.
6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in considering credits in Saving Bank Account and Loan Accounts of Rs. 13,25,832/-as Unexplained Money U/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE instead of Business Receipt.
7. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in considering cash deposited in Saving Bank Account and Loan Accounts of Rs. 39,53,928 as Unexplained Money U/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Addition cannot be made u/s 69A r.w.s. 11588E.
The appellant craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
Submission of ld.AR :
None appeared for the assessee. No adjournment letter was filed. 2 CIT(A).
Findings &Analysis :
We have heard ld. DR and perused the records. In this case, Assessee had filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 31.08.2017 declaring total income of Rs.2,91,830/-. The Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, Assessing Officer issued various notices. It has been specifically mentioned in the assessment order that Assessee failed to file reply in response to various notices. The AO assessed the income at Rs.95,88,494/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A).
5. Ld. CIT(A) passed the order on 22.07.2024 partially confirming the additions. It is noted that ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition mainly because Assessee had failed to file the details called for.
In the Ground No.1, Assessee has submitted that vide notice dated 18.07.2024, ld. CIT(A) had directed the assessee to file submission on or before 25.07.2024. However, ld.CIT(A) passed 3
In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee shall be at liberty to file submission before ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th Aug, 2025.
More judgments on Section 44AD
- Mohammed Javed Bhati, Sikar vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, SikarITA 994/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Rangoli Hotel, Mehsana vs DCIT, Circle, Gandhinagar, GandhiangarITA 2286/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Sonu Jain, Agra vs ITO WD(1)(1)(2), AgraITA 671/AGR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Sarvjeet Singh Through Legal Heir Manjit… vs ITO Ward 1(1), AlwarITA 355/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
