SUDHIR JAGANNATH BHONGALE,PUNE MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARTD 6(3), PUNE
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the
order of CIT(A) in National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated
26-07-2023 u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for the
Assessment Year 2017-18.
When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of
the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing. After hearing
ITA No.1022/PUN/2023
the ld. DR and perusing the material on record, we proceed to
dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the appellant.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an
individual who filed the return of income on 29-09-2017 declaring
total income at Rs.26,97,670/-. The return was processed u/s.143(1)
of the Act. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny under
CASS. It was observed that the appellant had deposited an amount
of Rs.37,50,000/- in the IDBI bank during the demonetization
period. Statutory notices were issued calling for the sources of cash
deposit of Rs.37,50,000/- made in IDBI bank during the
demonetization period. The appellant furnished the copy of return
of income, profit & loss account, balance sheet along with copy of
bank statement. The AO observed that the appellant had failed to
justify the sources of cash deposit made in his bank account.
Eventually, the AO in the assessment order dt. 22-12-2019 passed
u/s.143(3) of the Act assessed the total income at Rs.64,47,670/-,
thus making addition of Rs.37,50,000/- u/s.69A of the Act.
Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was
filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned order dismissed the
appeal of the appellant for non-prosecution.
ITA No.1022/PUN/2023
Heard the ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record.
We find that the approach of the ld.CIT(A) is totally unreasonable
and unjustified. In the present case, the CIT(A) fell in serious error
by not adjudicating the issues in appeal on merits. The settled
position of law mandates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal by
adjudicating the issue raised in appeal on merits. The findings of
the CIT(A) are not based on the material on record, which means
that the CIT(A) had not gone into the merits of the issue in appeal.
Therefore, considering the facts in entirety, we vacate the finding of
the CIT(A). In the circumstances, we remand the matter back to the
file of the CIT(A) and direct to dispose of the appeals on merits in
accordance with law after affording due opportunity of being heard
to the appellant.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed
for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 28th day of February, 2024.
Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 28th February, 2024 Satish
ITA No.1022/PUN/2023
आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब�च, 3. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 4.
आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune
