SHREELAXMI MAHILA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, PANDHARPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1236/PUN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 February 2019AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) erred in treating the appeal as time-barred. Evidence showed the demand notice was served later than initially reported, making the appeal filed within the prescribed time.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as time-barred. The CIT(A) held that the appeal was filed late based on the Assessing Officer's report regarding the service date of the demand notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed before the CIT(A) was time-barred due to incorrect reporting of the service date of the demand notice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Puranik
For Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Hearing: 16.01.2019Pronounced: 08.02.2019

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:

The appeal filed by assessee is against the order of CIT(A)-7, Pune, dated 17.04.2018 relating to assessment year 2014-15 against order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in treating the Appeal Non-est, alleging not explaining the delay in filing appeal. In fact there is no delay, as Assessing Officer’s report to CIT(A) is wrong.

ITA No.1236/PUN/2018 2

2.

Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in not discussing and allowing the Appellant’s claim of deduction u/s 80P for interest received Rs.5,42,379/- on FD with Nationalized Bank, though issue is covered by Pune ITAT decision in favour of Assessee. 3. Appellant prays for the levy of Cost to Assessing Officer for wrong reporting date of Service of Order.

3.

The appeal of assessee was dismissed by the CIT(A) on the ground that there was delay in filing the appeal late before him. The CIT(A) vide para 4 notes that assessment was completed on 30.06.2016 and demand notice was served to the assessee on 30.06.2016; so appeal filed on 09.08.2016 was out of time. The CIT(A) further notes that the Assessing Officer in ITNS-51 received on 05.09.2017 has confirmed that the appeal was out of time. The CIT(A) further notes that the assessee failed to give any reason for submitting the appeal late and hence, appeal of assessee was dismissed in limine.

4.

The assessee is in appeal against order of CIT(A) and has pointed out that in the remand report it is very clearly mentioned that notice of demand was served on 30.06.2016. However, date of service of demand notice was 22.07.2016. This position was brought to the knowledge of CIT(A). In support thereof, the assessee has furnished copy of acknowledgement due of postal department, which clearly reflects the service on 22.07.2016. It may be pointed out that the assessment order was passed on 30.06.2016 and consequently, the assessment order cannot be served on the same date. Thus, in view of evidence filed by assessee of acknowledgement due, which clearly shows the service of notice on 22.07.2016 and where the assessee has filed appeal on 09.08.2016 before the CIT(A), then the said appeal has been filed very much in time. In view thereof, I deem it fit to restore the issue back to the file of CIT(A) and direct the CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits in accordance with law after

ITA No.1236/PUN/2018 3

affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee are thus, allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

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

Order pronounced on this 8th day of February, 2019.

Sd/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 8th February, 2019. GCVSR आदेश की प्रयिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-7, Pune; 4. The Pr.CIT-6, Pune; ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे, एक-सदस्य 5. मामऱा / DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. 6. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →