DILIP RANGNATH PAGARE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD

The case was called twice, none appeared at the bequest of the appellant, in absence of any application seeking adjournment and none prosecution, after the ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 3

Dilip Rangnath Pagare Vs ITO AY 2012-13 primary briefing from the Ld. DR we deem it fit to proceed & adjudicate the issue ex-parte u/r 24 of ITAT-Rules, 1963, ergo progressed accordingly.

Heard the Ld. DR and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 perused material placed on record, considered the facts in the light of settled legal position.

We note that, the assessee is an individual and was identified as non-Filer. On the basis of information that the assessee deposited a cash of ₹24,01,000/-into his saving bank account maintained with ‘State Bank of India’ [‘SBI’ hereinafter], after recording the reason to believe that the assessee has escaped the assessment, the case of the assessee after obtaining approval from the competent authority was reopened vide notice dt. 28/03/2019 u/s 148 of the Act and called upon the assessee to file return and explain nature & source of cash deposits made. When the assessee failed to file return in response to former notice and further failed respond/comply with notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, the Ld. AO after putting the assessee to show cause notice culminated the assessment proceedings ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act to the best of his judgement and brought to tax entire amount of deposit in the hands of assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act vide assessment order dt. 28/11/2019. When matter travelled up in appeal, for the non- prosecution of appeal by the assessee the Ld. NFAC also confirmed the addition ex-parte and upheld the action of Ld. AO for assessee’s failure to substantiate the nature & source of cash deposits by placing on record any evidential & cogent documents/material.

The burden of proof that the cash deposited into bank account do not represents the income is on the claimant assessee and failure to discharge such burden may in view of Hon’ble Apex Court decision in ‘Shashi Garg Vs PCIT’ [2020, 113 taxmann.com 93 (SC) entitle the Revenue to assessee as unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act. However, it is candidly submitted by the Ld. DR that, before both the tax authorities below the assessee failed to present his case and place on record the material in support of claim that such cash deposit do not represent income which escaped the assessment. Admittedly, the appellant could not cause any appearance before the first appellate authority which led to ex-parte dismissal of the appeal by the Ld. NFAC. Having considered the facts of the case holistically, in the larger interest of justice, we deem it to grant one more opportunity to the assessee by remitting the file to the Ld. NFAC for de-novo adjudication who shall decide the issue in terms of s/s (6) of section 250 of the Act after affording three effective opportunities of hearing to the appellant. We order accordingly.

The assessee’s appeal in result ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Friday, 26th July, 2024.