RAJESH MANGILAL KHANDELWAL,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 251/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 May 2025AY 2014-15Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted that the assessee could not file necessary details before the CIT(A). Since no proper representation was made and no documentary evidence was furnished, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared income of Rs. 4,67,600/- for AY 2014-15. The AO made an addition of Rs. 2,48,96,098/- on account of unexplained cash investment. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO? Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69A,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Hearing: 15.05.2025Pronounced: 21.05.2025

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.251/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year 2014-2015) Rajesh Mangilal ITO, Ward-7(1), Pune Khandelwal, 13, Sasoon Road, Pune-411 001 PAN : ABGPK 1517 K vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Neelesh Kahndelwal, AR For Revenue : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 15.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.05.2025 ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.01.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2014-15.

2.

At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that necessary details and submissions could not be filed before the Ld. CIT(A) and in absence thereof, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the additions made by the Ld.AO u/sec. 69 of the Act. He prayed that one more opportunity may be provided for going before the Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication of the issues raised on merits as well as legal grounds.

3.

Ld.DR did not oppose the request of the Ld.AR.

2 ITA.No.251/PUN./2025 (Rajesh Mangilal) 4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee an individual, declared income of Rs. 4,67,600/- in his return for A.Y. 2014-15 furnished on 15/03/2016. On the basis of information about the alleged investment made by the assessee in cash at Rs.2,48,96,098/- in M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd., the Ld.AO issued notice u/s. 148 along with the reasons recorded for carrying out the reassessment proceedings. The Ld.AO concluded the proceedings making addition u/sec. 69A of the Act for unexplained money of Rs.2,48,96,098/- and assessed the total income at Rs.2,53,63,698/-.

5.

The assessee challenged the impugned addition before the Ld.CIT(A) along with raising legal grounds challenging the jurisdiction assumed by the Ld.AO for carrying out the reassessment proceedings and also the validity of notice u/sec. 148 of the Act. However, on the dates of hearing fixed to the notice dated 29/09/2023, 29/11/2024, 12/12/2024 & 08/01/2025, there was no proper representation from the assessee’s side. No documentary evidence were furnished regarding the claim of trading in agricultural produce; no explanation for source of cash was furnished. The Ld. CIT(A), in such circumstances, confirmed the order of the Ld.AO.

6.

We have considered the prayer made by the learned counsel for the assessee and therefore in the larger interest of the justice and being fair both the parties, deem it proper to remit back all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for 3 ITA.No.251/PUN./2025 (Rajesh Mangilal) afresh adjudication for which a reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be provided to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause and furnish all the details in support of grounds of appeal based on which the Ld. CIT(A) shall decide in accordance with law by way of passing a speaking order as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 21.05.2025.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →