IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1638/PUN/2025 िनधा(cid:6981)रण वष(cid:6981) / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Suhas Jagannath Kanase, Vs. ITO, National e- Swami Samarth Building Assessment Centre, Balajinagar, Medankarwadi, Delhi.

Near Holi English School, Pune- 410501.

PAN : ATBPK5338B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pritesh Raka &

Shri Bhavesh Lodha Revenue by : Shri Harshit Bari Date of hearing : 18.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 10.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19.

2. There is delay of 38 days in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the affidavit for condonation that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay of 38 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“Each of the grounds and/or sub-grounds of the appeal are independent and without prejudice to the others.

Ground No. 1:

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred addition of income of Rs. 42,11,657/- ας undisclosed salary without providing reasonable/adequate opportunity to be heard is violation of principle of natural justice The Appellant prays that the assessment order passed in violation of principle of natural justice, be quashed. The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 42,11,657/- be deleted.

Ground No. 2:

Without prejudice to ground no.1 above, the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) have erred in holding that the amount of Rs.42,11,657/- received by the assessee could be treated as income under the charging section or under the section dealing with the computation of income of the assessee The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 42,11,657/- be deleted.

Ground No. 3 Without prejudice to ground no.1 & 2 above, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is erred on holding that the payment made voluntarily by an employer out of his own sweet will and not conditioned by any legal duty or legal obligation, whether on sympathetic reasons or otherwise is assessable to tax under the Income Tax Act, 1961 disregarding the fact that the receipt was capital receipt and there is no provision to tax such receipt The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 42,11,657/- be deleted.

Ground No. 4 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in disallowing loss of Rs. 1,26,043/- under head of House property undisclosed salary without providing reasonable/adequate opportunity to be heard is violation of principle of natural justice by the learned assessing officer. The Appellant prays that the disallowance of Rs. 1,26,043/- be deleted.

Ground No. 5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 23,360/- without providing reasonable/adequate opportunity to be heard is violation of principle of natural justice by the learned assessing officer.

The Appellant prays that the addition of Rs. 23,360/- be deleted.

Ground No. 6 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Learned Assessing officer has erred in disallowing of Rs. 2,398/- without providing reasonable/adequate opportunity to be heard is violation of principle of natural justice The Appellant prays that the disallowance of Rs. 2,398/- be deleted.

Ground No.7 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 270A