Babasaheb Pandurang Bandgar Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune addressed an appeal filed by Babasaheb Pandurang Bandgar, a retired Vice Chancellor, concerning the Assessment Year 2016-17. The case stemmed from an assessment order issued under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was subsequently upheld by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The core dispute revolved around the valuation of a property purchased by Bandgar and his wife. The Assessing Officer (AO) had noted a significant discrepancy between the purchase consideration of Rs. 10 lakh and the stamp duty valuation of Rs. 3,22,68,600. This disparity led the AO to invoke section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act, adding the difference of Rs. 3,12,68,600 to Bandgar’s income. Additionally, the AO made additions of Rs. 19,66,200 as unexplained expenditure under section 69C and Rs. 48,149 for suppressed interest income. Bandgar had attempted to explain the valuation difference by providing 7/12 extracts, highlighting shared ownership and ongoing litigation concerning the land, but these explanations were rejected by the AO.
Bandgar’s initial appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was dismissed for non-prosecution. During the ITAT hearing, Bandgar’s counsel argued that the absence of representation before the CIT(A) was due to circumstances beyond their control, primarily related to the COVID-19 pandemic. They emphasized that Bandgar was now prepared to provide substantial documentary evidence to support his claims. The Departmental Representative did not object to the request for a remand. The ITAT, acknowledging that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without examining the merits of the case, decided to remit the matter for fresh adjudication. The ITAT directed the CIT(A) to obtain a remand report from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer and allow Bandgar a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Furthermore, the ITAT instructed Bandgar to be diligent in attending hearings, with the CIT(A) authorized to proceed as per law in case of unjustified adjournments. Ultimately, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s findings and allowed Bandgar’s appeal for statistical purposes, effectively sending the case back for a detailed review of the property valuation and related income tax additions.
