SHEKHAR BAJIRAO BHILARE,MAHABALESHWAR vs. I.T.O WARD-4, SATARA, SATARA

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee has not filed his return of income for the year under consideration. Since information was in possession of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had purchased certain immovable property and since the assessee had not filed his return of income, the Assessing Officer, after recording reasons, reopened the assessment as per the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Accordingly, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 30.03.2021 after obtaining the necessary approval of the competent authority. Subsequently, statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was also issued to the assessee. However,

In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,47,90,341/- u/s 69A by the Assessing Officer.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessment was completed u/s 144 of the Act. She submitted that the assessee comes from rural area and does not have much knowledge about the intricacies of the income tax law for which these unfortunate events happened and the assessment was completed ex-parte. She submitted that although the assessee filed additional evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC as per the provisions of Rule 46A, however, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC without admitting these additional evidences, dismissed the appeal. She submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case before the Assessing Officer.

The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the assessee and submitted that despite number of opportunities granted, the 4 SA No.3/PUN/2025

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that due to non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer, he was constrained to pass the ex-parte order u/s 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.2,47,90,341/-. We find although the assessee filed certain additional evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, however, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not accept the additional evidences and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the additional evidences so filed go to the root of the matter and given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before the Assessing Officer. Cconsidering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details to his satisfaction and decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due

Since we have decided the appeal and restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, therefore, the SA filed by the assessee becomes infructuous. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the SA is dismissed.

अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent

4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.