SUREKHA RAJENDRA PATIL,AHMEDNAGAR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE, AHMEDNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1078/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 December 2023AY 2015-163 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 91-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle that technicalities should not bar adjudication on merits. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on the remaining grounds.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 91-day delay in filing. The assessee claimed the delay was due to a lack of necessary information regarding the ex-parte assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and if so, whether the case should be remanded for adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 14.12.2023Pronounced: 14.12.2023

ORDER PER BENCH :

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015- 2016, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short [the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056169977(1), dated 17.09.2023, involving proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It is noticed at the outset during the course of hearing that there is hardly much a need for us to deal with 2 ITA.No.1078/PUN./2023 the relevant factual matrix at length once it has come on record that the CIT(A) has refused to condone 91 days delay in filing of the lower appeal at the assessee’s behest. It is in this factual backdrop that we are of the opinion, more particularly when the Assessing Officer’s corresponding ex-parte assessment dated 21.12.2017 followed by filing of the lower appeal on 21.04.2018; that the impugned delay has arisen because of lack of necessary information to the assessee regarding the afore stated assessment.

3.

The Revenue vehemently argued before us that the assessee had not submitted any justifiable reason for the purpose of condoning the impugned delay. We are of the view that the same hardly carries any merit in light of the clinching fact that there is no material on record which could indicate assessee to be negligent in pursuing it’s statutory remedy before the CIT(A). Be that as it may, hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the concerned litigants right to get the necessary adjudication on merits. We thus condone the impugned delay of 91 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal and restore the assessee’s all remaining grounds back to the CIT(A) for his further necessary

3 ITA.No.1078/PUN./2023 adjudication on merits preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 14.12.2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →