Vinayak Bahiru Medge Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, has provided a fresh opportunity to Vinayak Bahiru Medge, an assessee, to explain cash deposits and property purchases, setting aside an ex parte order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The case pertains to the Assessment Year 2015-16, where the Assessing Officer (AO) had made additions totaling ₹71,14,640 to Medge’s income.
The dispute arose after the assessee failed to file a return of income, despite information indicating a cash deposit of ₹37,14,640 in a bank account and the purchase of an immovable property worth ₹34,00,000. The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings, issuing show cause notices and notices under Section 148A(d) and Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. With no compliance from Medge, the AO completed the assessment ex parte under Section 144, treating the unexplained cash deposit and property source as income.
Subsequently, Medge filed an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC. However, this appeal was also dismissed for “want of prosecution” due to continued non-compliance. The assessee’s counsel argued before the ITAT that the notices from the CIT(A)/NFAC were sent to an old email ID, despite a new, updated email address being provided in Form No. 35, which is the form for filing an appeal. This alleged communication error, the counsel contended, led to the non-appearance and subsequent ex parte dismissal. The assessee’s representative assured the Tribunal that given a proper opportunity, all necessary details and explanations could be furnished to substantiate the sources of income and the property purchase.
