DILIP MADHAV ADLING,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), PUNE
आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण ”ए” ायपीठ पुणे म।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE
BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.1971/PUN/2024
िनधारणवष / Assessment Year:2017-18
Dilip Madhav Adling,
At post Nimgaon Ketki,
Tal-Indapur, Dist-Pune,
Pune – 413120, Maharashtra.
V s
The Income Tax Officer,
Ward-14(5), Pune.
PAN: AECPA4335A
Appellant/ Assessee
Respondent / Revenue
Assessee by None.
Revenue by Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain – DR
Date of hearing
13/08/2025
Date of pronouncement 29/08/2025
आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
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 :
ITA No.1971/PUN/2024[A]
2
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ITA No.1971/PUN/2024[A]
3
Submission of ld.DR :
Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the AO and the 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).
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
ITA No.1971/PUN/2024[A]
4
the order on 22.07.2024 without waiting for the reply from the assessee. These facts have not been rebutted by ld.DR.
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. VINAY BHAMORE
Dr.DIPAKP.RIPOTE
JUDICIAL MEMBER
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पुणे / Pune; दनांक / Dated : 29th Aug, 2025/ Satish
आदेशकितिलिपअेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, “ए” बच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune.
गाडफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,
////
Senior Private Secretary
आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.
ITA No.1971/PUN/2024[A]
5
S.
No Details
Date
Initi als
Designati on 1
Draft dictated on 28.08.2025
Sr. PS/PS
2
Final Draft placed before author
28.08.2025
Sr. PS/PS
3
Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member
.08.2025
JM/AM
4
Draft discussed/approved by Second Member
AM/AM
5
Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS
Sr. PS/PS
6
Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS
7
Date of uploading of Order
Sr. PS/PS
8
File sent to Bench Clerk
Sr. PS/PS
9
Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk
10
Date on which file goes to the A.R.
11
Date of Dispatch of order