##PAGE1##

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, पुणेपीठ

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE BENCHES,

PUNE

BENCH: A

BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

&

DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA 2987/PUN/2025

निर्धारणवर्ा/AssessmentYear: 2015-16)

BALAJI ASHOK MALI I T O Ward 1, 1

S.O, VADNER BHAIRAO, INCOME TAX OFFICE,

NASHIK-423111, CAMP ROAD,

MAHARASHTRA Vs. NAYAPURA,

MALEGAON-423203,

MAHARASHTRA

अपीलध्वीAppellant ्ቚ्ቓ्वी Respondent

Permanent Account Number of

BNJPM2369D

Assessee:

अपीलध्वी्ቛधरध/Appellant Shri Chinmayy Pathak

represented by: (Virtual).AR

्ቚ्ቓ्वी्ቛधरध/Respondentrepresented Shri Rajesh

by: Haladkar.Sr.DR

सुिवधईकीतधरीख/Date of conclusion of

23-July-2026

hearing:

घोर्णधकीतधरीख/Date of pronouncement: -July-2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:-

The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi / CIT(A) passed

1

ITA 2987/PUN/2025

BALAJI ASHOK MALI

u/sec 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised ground of appeal

challenging the order of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal inlimine

and sustaining the additions made by the assessing officer.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, The Assessing Officer (AO)

based on the information from Non-filing of Return (NMS) Module,

found that the assesse has made substantial cash deposits in

the bank account and the assesse has not filed the return of

income for the A.Y. 2015-16 .The A.O has reason to believe that

income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec 148A(b)

of the Act and there was no compliance by the assessee and the

A.O has passed the order under Section 148A(d) of the Act dated

31.03.2022 and notice u/sec 148 of the Act was issued and there

was no response. Further notice u/sec 142(1) of the Act and a

show cause notice was issued to explain the sources of cash

deposits with the evidences and there was no response. Finally

the A.O has issued a show cause notice and the assessee has

submitted the details and information. The A.O has dealt on the

facts and submissions and was not satisfied with the sources of

cash deposits to the extent of Rs.1,06,75,000/- and made

addition u/sec69A of the Act and assessed the total income of

Rs.1,06,75,000/- and passed the order under Section 147 r.w.s.

144 r.w.s144B of the Income Tax Act dated 27.02.2023.

3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before

the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of

appeal, statement of facts, findings of the AO and Form no 35 and

find that the assessee has not paid the taxes and the provisions

2

ITA 2987/PUN/2025

BALAJI ASHOK MALI

of section 249(4)(b) of the Act are attracted and has issued letter

and since there was no compliance by the assesse, the CIT(A) has

dismissed the appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the order of the

CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble

Tribunal.

4. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR submitted that CIT(A) has erred

in dismissing the appeal inlimine without appreciating the facts

that the conditions of payment of advance tax as specified

u/sec249(4)(b) of the Act are not applicable to the assessee and

CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating appeal on merits and prayed

for allowing the appeal. Per Contra, Ld. DR relied on the order of

the CIT(A).

5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on

record. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has passed the order considering

the fact that there is no compliance to the letter nor appearance

in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing. Therefore,

the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assesse is not interested

and find that as per Form no 35, the assessee has not paid the

taxes/advance tax and the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the

Act are attracted and the CIT(A) has issued letter and there was

no response and hence the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal as un

admitted. Whereas the assesse has raised grounds of appeal

challenging the addition by the A.O and there could be various

reasons for non-appearance/ compliance which cannot be

overruled. Further, in the case, were the r