MAYUR BALASAHEB SHINDE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(1), PUNE

Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mayur Balasaheb Shinde, V The Income Tax Officer, 1, Anil Apartment, Baner s Ward-2(1), Pune. Residency, Baner Road, Near Sakal Nagar, Aunch, Ganeshkind, Pune – 411007. PAN: DRBPS7371R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Sarang Gudhate – AR Revenue by Shri Prakash L Pathade – DR Date of hearing 13/11/2024 Date of pronouncement 18/11/2024 आदेश/ ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld Assessing officer is erred in considering the cash deposited of Rs.10,46,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE.

2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld Assessing officer is erred in treating agricultural income of Rs.13,63,625/- as Income from other sources.

3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, The Ld. Assessing officer is erred in making an addition on account of cash deposited whereas same is already considered in Net profit and in gross total income. This addition is resulting as a double taxation.

if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Submission of ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) :

2. Ld.AR submitted that there was delay in filing appeal before the ITAT. Ld.AR filed copy of affidavit of the assessee which explains the reasons for delay.

2.1 The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) without discussing each and every ground and merits of the case and merely dismissed for non-compliance. Ld.AR submitted that assessee’s earlier practitioner had mentioned his Email Id, therefore, assessee was not aware about the proceedings. Therefore, assessee could not reply as assessee has not received any notice. Hence, ld.AR requested for one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A)[NFAC].

Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. There is delay of 199 days in filing appeal before the ITAT. We have perused the affidavit of the assessee. We are of the opinion that there was sufficient reason for delay. Therefore, in the interest of the justice, we condone the Delay in filing appeal before the ITAT.

4.1 It is observed from the order of the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] that the ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] did not decide the grounds of appeal on merit but merely upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer as assessee has not filed any reply before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated grounds raised by the assessee on merits. It is observed that there was valid reason for non- compliance by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set-aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.