SHABBIRAHMAD MAHAMADHANIF MULLA,A/P KHANDAL, TAL GADHINGLAJ, KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE

BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1250/PUN/2025
Assessment Year : 2017-18

Shabbirahmad Mahamadhanif
Mulla,
A/P. Khandal, Tal. Gadhinglaj,
Kolhapur 416551, Maharashtra
PAN : DCEPM7442F
Vs.
Income Tax Officer,
Ward-1(5), Kolhapur

Appellant

Respondent

आदेश / ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18 is directed against the order dated
06.03.2025 of Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Chennai passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 27.12.2019 passed u/s.144 of the Act.
2. Based on the statement of facts and grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, I notice that impugned order in the instant appeal is exparte and no fair opportunity of hearing has been granted by ld.CIT(A) and prayer made to restore the matter to the file of ld.CIT(A) so that the sources of alleged cash deposit can be explained. It is further submitted that assessee is working as a bank correspondent and the alleged
Assessee by :
Shri Rahul Kavale
Revenue by :
Shri S. Sadananda Singh
Date of hearing
:
16.06.2025
Date of pronouncement
:
27.06.2025
Shabbirahmad Mahamadhanif Mulla

2
sum has been deposited during the demonetization period on behalf of various customers. Ld. Departmental Representative raised no objection if issues raised are restored to ld.CIT(A).
3. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before me. I observe that the assessee is an individual and did not file return of income for the year under appeal. During the demonetization period announced from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, Ld. Assessing Officer received information about the deposit of cash of Rs.18,37,000/- in two bank accounts held with Bank of Maharashtra, Kasba Nool
Branch. Though valid notices were issued and served upon the assessee, assessee failed to appear before the Assessing
Officer resulting into culmination of best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act and making addition of Rs.18,37,000/- for unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. Further appeal before ld.CIT(A) brought no good result as again there was no representation on behalf of the assessee.
4. I however in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee and remit the issues raised before me on merits to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide correct email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is further directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law.
Shabbirahmad Mahamadhanif Mulla

3
Findings of ld.CIT(A) is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 27th day of June, 2025. (MANISH BORAD)

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे / Pune;
दनांक / Dated : 27th June, 2025. Satish

आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :

//// Senior Private Secretary

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune