MILIND CHHABULALSHINKAR,JALGAON vs. ITO, WARD 2(3), , JALGAON
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
आदेश / ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 30.12.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, the appeal is barred by 378 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The appellant submitted an affidavit explaining the reasons for said delay. I am satisfied with the explanation putforth by the appellant. Therefore, I condone the delay of 378 days in filing the appeal and proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and no regular return of income under the provisions of section 139(1) of
2 ITA No.484/PUN/2024
the Act was filed. Based on the information available on AIMS Module, the Assessing Officer noticed that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs.9,42,000/- in savings bank account maintained with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Chalisgaon, Jalgaon, therefore, the AO formed opinion that income escaped assessment of tax. Accordingly, notices were issued on the appellant u/s. 148. However, the Appellant did not comply with the said notices. In the circumstances, the AO completed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act by treating the said cash deposit as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act vide order dated 16.12.2019. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the AO for non- prosecution. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 6. The ld. AR submits that the appellant is an illiterate and an agriculturist. He could not cause any appearance before the lower authorities due to the reasons beyond the control of the appellant. He thus prayed for an opportunity to the appellant by remanding the matter to the file of AO. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR has no serious objection for remanding the matter to the file of AO. 8. Heard both the sides and carefully examined the facts of the case. Admittedly, the appellant did not cause any appearance before the lower authorities, consequently, the orders were passed ex parte dismissing the appeal in limine. In the circumstances and the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to remit the issue to the file of AO for denovo adjudication in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. I order accordingly.
ITA No.484/PUN/2024
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on this 30th day of April, 2024.
/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 30th April, 2024. Satish
आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.
