INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-9(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. KAJAL VILAS BANEKAR, PIMPRI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 476/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 January 2026AY 2022-23Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.476/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Pune. Vs Kajal Vilas Banekar, Flat No.17, Vijaya Kate Apartment, New Pimple Road, Pimpri, Pune - 411017. PAN: CDMPB0020L. Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee by Shri Jitendra Tiwari Revenue by Smt Neha Thakkar – Virtual (on Rotation Duty) Date of hearing 22/01/2026 Date of pronouncement 27/04 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without following the procedure of Rule 46A, specifically without recording satisfaction and without providing an opportunity of hearing to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for de-novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to follow Rule 46A and grant opportunity to both parties.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income under section 44ADA. The Assessing Officer, noting a significant discrepancy between reported receipts and bank statement entries, made an addition under section 69A as the assessee failed to explain. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) and filed additional evidence during the appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred procedurally by admitting additional evidence without recording satisfaction and without providing an opportunity to the Assessing Officer as required by Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 44ADA,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A” :: PUNE

Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Tiwari
For Respondent: Smt Neha Thakkar – Virtual (on Rotation Duty)
Hearing: 22/01/2026Pronounced: 27/01/2026

Assessment Year: 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer, Vs Kajal Vilas Banekar, Ward-9(1), Pune. Flat No.17, Vijaya Apartment, New Kate Pimple Road, Pimpri, Pune – 411017. PAN: CDMPB0020L Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee by Shri Jitendra Tiwari Revenue by Smt Neha Thakkar – Virtual (on Rotation Duty) Date of hearing 22/01/2026 Date of pronouncement 27/01/2026 आदेश/ ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2022-23 dated 05.12.2024 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 21.03.2024. [D] Findings and Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records.

3.

In this case admittedly Assessee had filed Return of Income for A.Y.2022-23 showing income u/s.44ADA of the Act of Rs.10,26,300/- against the Total Receipt of Rs.17,10,500/-. During Assessment Proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that Total Receipts as per the Assessee’s bank statement was Rs.2,24,60,428/-. The Assessing Officer(AO) issued various notices to the Assessee and asked assessee to explain. But Assessee failed to file reply. Hence the AO made an addition of Rs.2,24,60,428/- u/s.69A of the Act in the Assessment Order dated 21/03/2024.

4.

Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the Assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal). During the Appellate proceedings admittedly the Assessee filed evidence before ld.CIT(A) as mentioned in the order. Ld.AR has accepted that Additional evidence was filed before Ld.CIT(A).

5.

It is observed from the Order u/s.250 of the Act, that no opportunity was provided to the Assessing Officer as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule. It is also noted that the ld.Commissioner of 2 Income Tax(Appeal) has not recorded any satisfaction before admitting Additional Evidence which is required as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.

6.

In these facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the Order of the ld.CIT(A) passed u/s.250 of the Act to ld.CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to both the Assessee and AO. Ld.CIT(A) shall follow the procedure laid down in Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →