JIGNESH SUBHASH AGARWAL,PUNE CITY, YAMUNANAGAR S.O vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 716/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: DR.MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to appear and plead grounds due to non-receipt of notices. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication, directing the assessee to provide correct contact details and remain vigilant.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre for AY 2017-18. The original assessment order made an addition for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee failed to appear before the CIT(A) due to a wrong email address provided in Form No. 35, compounded by pandemic-related issues.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to the assessee's failure to appear because of incorrect contact information and pandemic circumstances.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Anirudh Dave
Hearing: 05.05.2025Pronounced: 14.05.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 20.01.2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment order dated 24.12.2019 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act.

2.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in absence of proper notice of hearing assessee failed to participate in the impugned proceedings and therefore prayed for granting one more opportunity of hearing before ld.CIT(A). Ld. Departmental Representative did not oppose this request.

3.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee who is an individual furnished return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on Jignesh Subhash Agarwal 29.11.2017 declaring income of Rs.7,70,970/-. Case selected for scrutiny and assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was framed on 24.12.2019 making addition of Rs.39,74,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposits u/s.69A and assessed income at 46,82,420/-. Assessee Challenged the addition before ld.CIT(A) but failed to comply to the notices of hearing of which first notice was given during the covid-19 pandemic period prevailed across the country. Non-compliance at the end of assessee on account of non-receipt of notice(s) of hearing was on account of wrong e-mail given in Form No.35. However, the fact remains that assessee could not plead the grounds of appeal nor could file any evidence in support of cash deposits. We therefore considering the facts and circumstance of the case and in the larger interest of justice deem it proper to restore the issues to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Assessee is directed to provide latest email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

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

Order pronounced on this 14th day of May, 2025.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →