Skip to main content

Vitthal Laxman Bhujadi Vs. Income Tax Officer

Case No: ITA No.1358/PUN/2026
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench 'B'
Date: 21 Sep 2026

Parties Involved

appellantVitthal Laxman Bhujadi
respondentIncome Tax Officer

Facts Summary

Vitthal Laxman Bhujadi, a medical professional, filed his income return on 29.11.2014 declaring a total income of Rs.8,68,641/-. An order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act was passed on 30.12.2016 determining his total income at Rs.42,80,140/-. The case was reopened under section 147, and a notice under section 148 was issued, to which the assessee did not respond. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 142(1) asking for certain details, which the assessee did not provide. Consequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee issued a cheque amounting to Rs.41,30,000/- to Orange Medicare & Research but failed to provide any details to prove the nexus between the assessee and Orange Medicare & Research. The Assessing Officer also noted that the assessee made deposits with Mr. Anil Varpe by cash and cheque amounting to Rs.52,80,000/- during the year under consideration, which was not reflected in the return of income filed by the assessee. The assessee failed to offer any explanation regarding the source of such cash and cheque deposit of Rs.52,80,000/- to Mr. Anil Varpe. The Assessing Officer made an addition of the said sum to the total income of the assessee. Since the assessee did not make any submission before the Commissioner (Appeals)/NFAC despite several opportunities granted, the Commissioner (Appeals)/NFAC in the exparte order passed by him sustained …

Decision in favour of

Assessee

Legal Issues

  • 1. Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer is justified?
  • 2. Whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to file the requisite details before the Commissioner (Appeals)/NFAC?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

4 precedents cited in this judgement.

Opakhya LogoOpakhya

AI-powered tax-litigation platform. Find precedents using natural language, draft submissions in minutes, and run your entire case repository from a single secure workspace.

© 2025 Opakhya. All rights reserved.

Core Features

Additional Features

  • Smart Comments
  • Export Options
  • Quick Copy
  • Analytics Dashboard
Version 2.0.1•Last updated: October 2025
Powered by AI & Machine Learning