ITAT Allows Appeal of Petrol Pump Owner for Statistical Purposes: Cites Consultant's Lapse and Denial of Fair Opportunity
The Tribunal set aside an ex parte assessment order against a petrol pump owner for unexplained cash deposits, citing consultant negligence and lack of a fair hearing.
petrol pump owner
petrol pump owner
The Pune Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT has set aside the ex-parte appellate order against Shivraj Shankar Gundewadi, a petrol pump operator from Maharashtra, and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer(AO) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted lapses by the assessee’s former consultant and the failure of the authorities to consider material facts on record, which led to the disallowance of over ₹12.53 lakh allegedly treated as unexplained money.
The appeal stemmed from an order passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017–18. The case was reopened initially by the Income Tax Officer, following unexplained cash deposits of ₹12,53,560 in the assessee’s bank account. Due to the assessee’s repeated non-compliance with statutory notices, a best judgment assessment was passed, and the amount was treated as unexplained under Section 69, triggering tax implications under Section 115BBE.
Want a deeper insight into the Income Tax Bill, 2025? Click here
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC with a substantial delay of 400 days. However, the Tribunal accepted the assessee’s reasoning that the previous tax consultant had failed to communicate the order served to him on November 22, 2023. The document was only forwarded to the new consultant on February 21, 2025, leading to the delay. Citing the recent Supreme Court decision in Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Tribunal held that the delay was due to the fault of the consultant and not the assessee. In such circumstances, the Court ruled that litigants should not suffer on account of their representatives’ negligence.
While condoning the delay, the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order owing to the assessee's continued non-compliance. However, the Tribunal found that the first appellate authority had not considered key facts placed in the statement of facts. The assessee had mentioned that he was the proprietor of Matoshri Krushi Seva Kendra, a petrol pump business located in Salgare, Miraj Taluka.
How to Audit Public Charitable Trusts under the Income Tax Act Click Here
He also claimed that the alleged cash deposits were part of the petrol pump's regular cash sales. According to him, the books were audited, and audit reports were duly filed. However, the CIT(A) summarily rejected the appeal, citing a lack of documentary evidence and failing to verify the assertions made.
The ITAT observed that while the assessee had failed to respond to multiple notices, the case still warranted reconsideration in light of facts already disclosed, especially given the nature of the business. The Tribunal, consisting of Accountant Member Manish Borad, directed the assessee to update his contact information and e-mail ID on the Income Tax portal and cooperate fully in the proceedings without seeking unnecessary adjournments. As a result, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
