Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 47 days, which was condoned. The Assessing Officer made additions on account of purchase of immovable property and cash deposit, invoking sections 69 and 69A respectively, due to lack of satisfactory explanation from the assessee. The CIT(A)/NFAC sustained these additions ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay and, considering the submissions that miscommunication led to the non-representation, restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to substantiate their case with requisite details, with liberty to the CIT(A)/NFAC to pass orders as per law if the assessee failed to comply.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in passing an ex-parte order, and if the assessee should be granted a final opportunity to present evidence for investments in property and cash deposits.
Sections Cited
69, 69A, 147, 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA
Assessment year : 2019-20 Amol Sheshnarayan Karle ITO, Ward-6(1), Pune At Post Nanded, Tal Haveli Pune, Vs. Nanded, Nanded B.O., Pune - 411041 PAN: BCCPK8856P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : CA Anuja Kulkarni Department by : Shri Mukul Kulkarni (virtually) Date of hearing : 07-04-2026 Date of pronouncement : 10-04-2026 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.08.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2019-20.
There is a delay of 47 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay according to which the assessee was undergoing continuous medical treatment. After considering the contents of the condonation application filed along with the affidavit and after hearing the Ld. DR, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of purchase of immovable property of Rs.50 lakhs u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and cash deposit of Rs.8,76,000/- u/s 69A of the Act.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.6,16,470/-. The case of the assessee was reopened after recording reasons as per the provisions of section 147 of the Act and accordingly notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee in response to the same filed his return of income declaring same income as declared originally. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to explain the source of investment for purchase of immovable property amounting to Rs.50 lakhs and payment of cash of Rs.8,76,000/- to M/s. Kartavya Nirmiti. In absence of any explanation to his satisfaction regarding the source of investment made for purchase of immovable property amounting to Rs.50 lakhs and payment of cash amounting to Rs.8,76,000/- to M/s. Kartavya Nirmiti, the Assessing Officer made addition of the same by invoking the provisions of section 69 and 69A of the Act respectively.
Since the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC despite number of opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in the ex-parte order passed by him 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.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to miscommunication between the assessee and his authorized representative, the case remained un- represented. She submitted that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details.
The Ld. DR on the other hand opposed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.
We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that due to non-submission of any details to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, he made addition of Rs.50 lakhs u/s 69 of the Act being the amount paid for purchase of immovable property. Similarly, he made addition of Rs.8,76,000/- u/s 69A of the Act being the cash paid to M/s. Kartavya Nirmiti. We find due to non-submission of any details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC despite number of opportunities granted, he sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. Considering 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 Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to submit the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 10th April, 2026.