ANIL MALLESHAPPA GORE,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (1), SOLAPUR
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The ITAT set aside the case to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee an opportunity of hearing and to file necessary documents. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made additions to the assessee's income under Section 41(1) and as business income from property sale. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-appearance. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.
What were the issues?
Whether the additions made by the AO were justified and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of hearing before the lower authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
ORDER
PER DR.DIPAK P.RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’s, order dated 29.11.2019for the Assessment Year 2014-15, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Addition of Rs.9,60,697 made u/s.41(1) by the Assessing Officer, and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
7. Pune, is unjust.
2. Addition of Rs.53,69,020 made on account of profit on sale of the property by the Assessing Officer, and confirmed by the A.Y.2014-15 Anil Malleshappa Gore (A)
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Pune is not justified.”
Case called twice. None appeared on-behalf of the appellant assessee. Hence, this appeal is decided Ex-Party. We have studied the orders of the lower authority, heard the Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue. In this case, the Return of Income(RoI) was E-filed on 31/03/2015 declaring income of Rs.2,65,430/-. As per the assessment order the assessee is Builder and land developer. During the assessment proceedings the assessing officer issued letters under section 133(6) of the Act, to certain creditors appearing in the list of creditors submitted by the assessee. Those persons filed reply. It was observed by the Assessing Officer(AO) that there was difference in the amount appearing as outstanding in those persons books vis-à-vis amount shown by assessee in his books. The AO confronted these facts to the assessee. The AR of the assessee stated during the assessment proceedings that he has no objection if the difference in the amount which is Rs.9,60,697/- is added u/s.41(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.9,60,697/-. The AO also observed that there was transaction of Rs.92,00,000/- appearing in the AIR information received by the AO regarding assessee. The AO asked assessee to explain it. Assessee submitted that to avoid litigation he voluntarily offer long term capital gain. However, the AO observed that A.Y.2014-15 Anil Malleshappa Gore (A) assessee has shown the impugned asset in his balance sheet as current asset and not as investment. Hence, the AO added Rs.53,69,020/- (Sale consideration Rs.92,00,000/- less cost as per balance sheet Rs.38,30,980/-) as business income.
The assessee filed appeal before the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal). The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as assessee failed to appear before the ld.CIT(A) and failed to file any submission.
Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. Even no one appeared before us during the hearing. However, in the interest of substantial justice, we set aside the case to ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal). The ld.CIT(A) shall grant opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall file all the necessary documents/evidence before the ld.CIT(A).
More judgments on Section 41(1)
- ACIT, Central Circle, Agra vs M/S Ghanaram Infraengineers Pvt. Ltd., New…ITA 328/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT, Central Circle, Agra vs M/S Ghanaram Infraengineers Pvt. Ltd., New…ITA 327/AGR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- ACIT, Central Circle, Agra vs M/S Ghanaram Infraengineers Pvt. Ltd., New…ITA 326/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- ACIT-Central Circle, Agra vs M/S Ghanaram Infraengineers Pvt. Ltd., New…ITA 325/AGR/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Morlidhar B Vamdote, Bardoli vs ITO, Ward-1, BardoliITA 1174/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026