SATISH SADASHIV KHARAT,SANGLI vs. CIT(A), SANGLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 921/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 June 2025AY 2014-15Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee submitted an affidavit and supporting documents, including sale deeds and bank statements, that were not presented before the Assessing Officer. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order for denovo adjudication by the Assessing Officer, allowing the assessee to present necessary documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which originated from an assessment order under sections 144 read with 147. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 18,79,286/- on account of the assessee's alleged share in a property purchase, which the assessee claimed was not invested.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer was justified without verifying the documents submitted by the assessee, and whether the assessee should be allowed to present their case with supporting evidence in a denovo adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 236,Section 237,Section 229/1,Section 229/2

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE

Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar – Addl.CIT(DR)
Hearing: 24/06/2025Pronounced: 25/06/2025

आदेश/ ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2014-15 dated 11.12.2023, emanating from assessment order u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2014-15, dated 15.11.2019. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

1) Ground No.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and Learned Assessing Officer has erred in completion the assessment u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without Considering the actual share of the appellant . he made addition of Rs.18,79,286/- without considering that this amount was never invested by the appellant. 1.1) 7 Individuals including the appellant has purchased a plot of land having total cost of Rs.1,33,55,000/- Appellant has less share in this plot of land and due to this he has paid only Rs.7,00,000/- towards purchase of this plot of land.

2.

At the outset of hearing, No one appeared on behalf of the assessee. No adjournment letter was filed.

Finding & Analysis : 3. We have heard ld.DR for the Revenue and perused the record placed before us. It is observed that Assessing Officer has received information regarding joint purchase of Immovable Property for Rs.1,31,55,000/- by Seven(07) persons including assessee. Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 02.05.2018. Assessing Officer noted that there was no compliance, hence Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.18,79,290/- which was 1/7th share of the Assessee. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-compliance.

3.1 Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), Assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal.

4.

Assessee filed Affidavit explaining facts. The relevant Paragraphs of the Affidavit are reproduced here as under : “1, Mr. Satish Sadashiv Kharat, PAN - DCIPK4751H, do hereby take oath and solemnly affirm as under :-

1. 1. Out of total cost of plot of land (Gat No. 217/1+2/5/B) my share was only of Rs.7,00,000/-. I have paid Rs. 7,00,000/- towards my share in purchase of Plot. This plot I had purchased on 11/10/2013.

2. This amount have been paid out of sale proceeds of one plot of land which was sold for Rs.8,50,000/- on 8/5/2013.

3. I have never Paid Rs.18,79,286/- As allegation per made in the assessment order. The above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. If it found false I will be liable for punishment under 236, 237 229/1, and 229/2 of THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITS 2023.”

5. In support, Assessee has also filed copies of the registered sale deed dated 08.05.2013 and registered sale deed, dated 11.10.2013. The registered sale deed dated 11.10.2013 vide which Seven Persons has purchased a land gives details of payment made and the cheque numbers. Therefore, the information regarding payments made was easily available in the registered sale deed. However, Assessing Officer has not verified it. Assessee has also filed copy of the Bank Statement of Bank of India to substantiate payment of Rs.7 lakhs only. However, it is also a fact that these documents were not filed before the Assessing Officer. Assessee has filed all these documents before the ld.Departmental Representative for the Revenue also.

6.

In these facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, we set-aside the assessment order for denovo adjudication to the Assessing Officer. Assessing Officer shall provide opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The Assessee shall file necessary documents before the Assessing Officer.

7.

We have already mentioned that Assessee has already filed copy of registered sale deed dated 08.05.2013, wherein, Assessee is a seller and copy of registered sale deed dated 11.10.2013 wherein, Assessee is one of the purchasers. Assessee has also filed copy of Bank Statement of Bank of India, Tasgaon Branch. Therefore, we request ld.DR to forward copies of these documents to the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Delay: We found that there is a delay of 34 days in filing appeal before the ITAT. Assessee filed an Affidavit and pleaded for the condonation of delay. We have perused the Affidavit and are convinced that there is sufficient and reasonable cause for delay. Accordingly, the Delay is condoned. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25 June, 2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →