SHASHIKANT BABURAO BHOSALE,KOLHAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, KOLHAPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the order of the NFAC and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted a final opportunity to substantiate the purchase of the vehicle.
What were the facts?
The assessee failed to file his return of income for AY 2011-12. The case was reopened due to the purchase of a motor vehicle for Rs. 5,41,997/-. The assessee remained absent during assessment and appeal proceedings.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of the motor vehicle purchase as unexplained income is justified without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to present evidence, and whether principles of natural justice were followed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 143(3),Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE „SMC‟ BENCHES :: PUNE
ORDER
Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:
This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, dated 11.07.2023 for A.Y.2011-12 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
2. In this case, assessee had not filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12. The case of the assessee was reopened u/sec. 147 after taking necessary approval of the competent authority. The reason for reopening of the case was that assessee had purchased motor vehicle for Rs. 5,41,997/-, which was confirmed by the motor showroom - Sai Service Station Ltd. Notice u/sec. 148 was issued, but no explanation filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer Shashikant Baburao Bhosale (AO) by making the addition of Rs. 5,41,997/- as unexplained income u/sec. 69A of the Act, completed the assessment u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act .
Being aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the NFAC, where also, assessee remained absent though many opportunities had been granted to him. Therefore, NFAC following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Gold Leaf Capital Corporation Ltd. in dated 02/09/2011 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
We have heard the submissions of the parties, considered the materials/documents on record and have analysed the facts and circumstances in this case. The assessee had not filed original return of income for the relevant A.Y. 2011-12. The case of the assessee was reopened u/sec. 147 of the Act with proper statutory approval; and reasons for reopening was that the assessee had purchased a motor vehicle for Rs. 5,41,997/-, but not filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year. That, as appearing from the assessment order, there were opportunities of hearing given to the assessee, which he failed to attend, and accordingly the assessment was completed u/sec. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. We further observe from the order of NFAC specifically at para 3.1 that in spite of 06 Shashikant Baburao Bhosale opportunities of hearing, the assessee had not complied, as stated therein, with any of the hearing notices. However, at the time of hearing before this bench, ld.AR submitted that the first two dates of hearing i.e. 26/03/2020 & 21/09/2020 were covered in Covid-19 pandemic period, similarly for the next date of hearing i.e. 27/01/2021 that was also covered in Covid-19 pandemic period, and thereafter, two dates of hearing was there i.e. 08/06/2023 & 27/06/2023 for which the assessee had not received the hearing notices, but for the final date of hearing on 10/07/2023, the assessee did file the relevant details, however, the same have not been brought on record. These facts could hardly be refuted by the ld.DR. We further observe from the entire case records that the only addition in this case has been regarding purchase of motor vehicle and non-filing of income tax return. It is observed that there was no compliance from the assessee at both the levels of revenue authorities. Before us ld.AR submitted that they are willing to produce necessary evidences as would be called for by the Department, if one final opportunity is given to them.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that even if one final opportunity is given to the assessee to substantiate his case on merits regarding the purchase of vehicle before the NFAC, the Revenue will not be jeopardized by any means and rather the principles of natural justice would be upheld where the assessee will get one final opportunity to make an effective Shashikant Baburao Bhosale representation before the Department. In view thereof, we set aside the order of NFAC and remand the matter back to its file for de novo adjudication complying with principles of natural justice and at the same time, we direct the assessee, this being the final opportunity, he should file all relevant documents/details which will be necessary to make a representation of his case on merits before the Department. Grounds of appeal, accordingly, stands allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open Court on 21st February, 2024.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026