Pune ITAT Restores ₹50 Lakh Section 69A Addition for Fresh Adjudication as HUF Submits Loan Evidence for First Time Before Tribunal
Case Overview
Case Name: Dashrath Balwant Barne HUF Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Appeal Number: ITA No. 1236/PUN/2026
Date of Order: 28/07/2026
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Forum: ITAT Pune
Background and Context
The present case revolves around an addition of ₹50 lakh made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of an HUF assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16. The matter reached the Pune Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) after the assessee challenged the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi under Section 250 of the Act, which in turn arose from an assessment order dated 27.03.2023 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B of the Act.
What makes this case particularly instructive is the fact that the assessee — Dashrath Balwant Barne HUF — had failed to produce any documentary evidence at either the assessment stage or before the first appellate authority, yet came forward with a fresh set of documents before the Tribunal. The ITAT, balancing the principles of natural justice and the need for proper factual verification, chose to restore the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for fresh examination rather than either confirming or deleting the addition outright.
Preliminary Issue: Condonation of Delay of 168 Days
Before addressing the merits, the Tribunal was required to deal with a critical procedural hurdle. The Registry had flagged that the appeal was filed with a delay of 168 days beyond the prescribed limitation period.
The assessee filed an affidavit setting out the reasons behind the delayed filing. After examining the affidavit and the surrounding circumstances, the Tribunal found that reasonable cause had indeed prevented timely filing and that the delay was not the result of any deliberate or wilful omission on the part of the assessee.
Relying on two significant Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal condoned the delay:
- Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (SC), (1987) 2 SCC 107
- Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (SC), judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382)
Both decisions reinforce the well-settled principle that courts and tribunals must adopt a liberal and pragmatic approach when considering applications for condonation of delay, particularly where the delay is not motivated by mala fide intent and where refusing to condone the delay would shut out a legitimate opportunity for adjudication on merits. With the delay condoned, the Tribunal proceeded to admit the appeal for hearing on its substantive merits.
Facts of the Case: How the Assessment Originated
Return Filing History and Reopening Under Section 148
Dashrath Balwant Barne HUF had not filed its regular return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16. The case came to the attention of the tax authorities through information received from the Insight Portal, which flagged Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) amounting to ₹2,36,17,578/- standing in the name of the HUF.
Acting on this information, a valid notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued and duly served upon the assessee. In response to the notice, the HUF filed a return of income declaring a total income of ₹36,59,080/-.