THE NASHIK DISTRICT CO-OP AGRICULTURAL RURAL MULTIPURPOSE DEV BANK LTD,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2057/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 February 2020AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The delay was condoned, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 204 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to the advice of their initial Chartered Accountant not to file an appeal, and later consulted another CA upon imposition of penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and should be condoned. The issue of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was a consequence leading to the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Ajay N. Rathi
For Respondent: Smt. Elsy Mathew

This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Nashik on 01-06-2017 in relation to the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The assessee is aggrieved by non-condonation of delay of 204 days by the ld. CIT(A) in presenting the appeal before him and eventually dismissing the same.

The Nashik District Co.op. Agricultural Rural Multipurpose Development Bank Ltd.,

3.

I have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. The ld. CIT(A) recorded in para 3.1 of the impugned order that the assessee did not furnish any reasons for the delay. On the contrary, an affidavit of the Managing Director of the assessee society has been filed stating that no opportunity was granted by the ld. CIT(A) to explain the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. It has further been asserted in the affidavit that the appeal was initially not filed on the advice of the then Chartered Accountant. It was only on the imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) that the assessee consulted another Chartered Accountant, who advised for filing of the extant appeal.

Affidavit of the earlier Chartered Accountant has also been placed on record who advised the assessee not to file appeal against the order. In view of these facts, I am satisfied that there was a reasonable cause in presenting the appeal belatedly before the ld. CIT(A). I, therefore, condone the delay and remit the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) for disposing it afresh on merits as per law after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Nashik District Co.op. Agricultural Rural Multipurpose Development Bank Ltd.,

4.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07th February, 2020.

(R.S.SYAL) उपा�य� उपा�य�/ VICE PRESIDENT उपा�य� उपा�य� पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 07th February, 2020 सतीश आदेश क� क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / 3. The CIT (Appeals)-1, Nashik 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Nashik िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / 5. DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. // True copy //

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →