SAMWAT SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 913/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 May 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte due to non-compliance. The assessee had also opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme but failed to provide clarification regarding the condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and whether the assessee should be given an opportunity to pursue the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 249(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Respondent: Shri Madhukar Anand, JCIT

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (NFAC) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟), for AY. 2017-18 on 27/01/2026 emanating from Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 24/12/2019. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte. Thus, the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh consideration.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal when the Appellant has opted for Vivad se Vishwas scheme and form 2 is yet to be issued by the learned designated authority which is beyond the control of the Appellant. Thus, the impugned order dated 27.01.2026 may be set aside and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be directed to decide the appeal after the outcome of the amnesty scheme.

2

3.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per the law, the interest of Rs. Rs. 8,72,628/- from bank of Baroda is entitled for a deduction under Section 801A and thus, it may be allowed.

3.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The Ground number 1 of the assessee is that Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee Ex-Parte and hence Assessee requested for one more opportunity to be provided by CIT(A).

3.1.

The Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by observing as under : “In the appeal proceedings the appellant has miserably failed to file any compliance; neither the appellant nor their authorised representative has made either any written submission or filed any adjournment letter/ petition. Therefore the appellant miserably failed to substantiate the grounds taken by them with the supporting documents .This indicates the appellant is not willing to pursue his appeal . In view of above , I do not find any infirmity in the order of the AO and resultantly, I have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order of the AO dated 24-Dec-2019isbased on apropos consideration of facts and law and hence the same does not warrant interference in as much as the appellant being unable to discharge onus of proving the interest income from F.D being incidental to eligible business… ”

3.2.

Thus Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal observing that assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal.

3.3.

In this case Ld.Authorised Representative of the Assessee submitted that Assessee had filed an application under Direct Tax Vivad Se Visvas Scheme for AY 2017-18. But, the competent authority Pr.CIT vide letter dated 19/02/2025 has observed as under : Sub: Declaration made under DTVSV-2024 :- Please refer to the declaration filed by you in Form No.1 under the DTVSV 2024, in respect of appeal filed by you before the NFAC under Ack No. 848140170290125 on 29/01/2025. On perusal, it is seen that in the appeal filed, the date service of order which is sought to be appealed against, is stated to be 24/12/2019. Thus, the appeal been filed beyond the limitation prescribed in sub- section (2) of Section 249 of the Act and a request for condonation has been made in the Appeal filed. However, it is not clear whether the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned by the NFAC and the appeal is admitted. Unless the delay is condoned and appeal is admitted as on 22/07/2024, the appeal cannot be considered as pending for the purpose of DTVSV, 2024 (Please refer to answer to FAQ No.38 & 39 issued by the CBDT under its Circular No. 19 of 2024 dated 16/12/2024).

3 You are hereby given an opportunity to clarify whether the delay in filing the above appeal has been condoned and appeal is admitted by the NFAC Please note that your clarification in the matter may reach this office within 3 days of receipt of this communication, failing which your application shall be liable to be rejected.

However, inadvertently, the assessee failed to file reply to the said letter.

Therefore, Ld.AR submitted that of the Order of the CIT(A) is set aside to CIT(A) , the assessee will be able to pursue its application for DTVSV.

3.4.

Ld.DR submitted that he has no objection if the Order of CIT(A) is set aside to CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.

3.5.

In this case admittedly the assessee could not file any reply before CIT(A) as it was interested in DTVSVS. Therefore, as suggested by both the parties, the Order of CIT(A) is set aside to CIT(A) for denovo Adjudication. The CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee.

4.

In the result, Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

4.1.

Ld.AR has not argued the other grounds raised by the assessee. Since we have set aside the Order u/s 250 for de-novo adjudication, all other grounds raised by the assessee becomes academic in nature.

Accordingly all other grounds are dismissed as unadjudicated.

5.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 18th May, 2026 (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 18th May, 2026 TNMM

4 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपील र्थी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent

2.3.

The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune

4.

DR, ITAT, „SMC‟ Bench, Pune ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. 5. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, ////

More judgments on Section 249(2)

All 636 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →