MRS RAJASHREE BABURAO BORKAR,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE-3, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 129/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2023AY 2016-173 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to present its case before the Pr. CIT during the revision proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Pr. CIT for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with a significant delay of 613 days, which was condoned by the tribunal. The core issue was whether the Pr. CIT was justified in initiating revision proceedings under Section 263 against an ex-parte assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether the Pr. CIT was justified in passing an order under Section 263 without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Avachat
For Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

1.

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31-03-2021 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Pune (“Pr. CIT”) for assessment year 2016-17 u/s. 263 of the Act.

2.

We find that this appeal was filed with a delay of 613 days. The assessee filed notarized affidavit dated 30-01-2023 explaining the reasons for delay. On perusal of the same and hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really prevented the assessee to file the present appeal in time. Therefore, the delay of 613 days is condoned.

3.

The assessee raised five grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the Pr. CIT justified in holding the assessment order dated 21-12-2018 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act ex-parte of the assessee.

4. At the outset, we note that the Pr. CIT initiated 263 proceedings on an examination of the above said assessment order and found the AO failed to make necessary enquiries and verification with regard to cash in hand and cash deposits, excess cash deposits in loan account. According to the Pr. CIT that the assessee was asked to furnish submissions through ITBA or on official e-mail and the assessee did not reply to the notice which is evident from para 3 of the impugned order. It is also established that the Pr. CIT proceeded to 263 proceedings ex-parte of the assessee and held the assessment order dated 21-12-2018 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue based on the material available on record which is also evident from para 3 of the impugned order. We note that admittedly, there was no opportunity for the assessee to prosecute the issues raised by the Pr. CIT in the revision proceedings and the ld. AR before us prayed for an opportunity for the assessee to substantiate its claim before the Pr. CIT.

5.

The ld. DR fairly conceded that there was no occasion to substantiate the claim of the assessee before 263 proceedings. Taking into facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the issue to the file of Pr. CIT for its fresh consideration. The assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, the order of Pr. CIT is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

6.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29th May, 2023.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →