INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -3(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI UDAY RAJENDARA PANSE, NAGPUR
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, primarily due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect in many cases was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars for filing appeals.
What were the facts?
The Revenue filed appeals before the ITAT after a significant delay. The Revenue sought condonation of this delay, citing reasons such as seeking legal opinion and procedural red-tape.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeals by the Revenue is liable to be condoned, and if the appeals are maintainable given the low tax effect.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
CBDT Circular No. 03/2018, CBDT Circular No. 21/2015
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (10 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN; JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON'BLE SHRI G MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 182/NAG/ 2018 (Asst_ Year 2013-14) ITO, Ward-3(2) Ground floor, Saraf Chambers, Mount Road, Sadar, Nagpur-440001 #S_ Shri Gowardhan D. Chakole, Plpt no, 39. F. No. 103, Shivranjini Appartment, Congress Nagar, Nagpur- 440012. PAN No_ AARPC1773F ITA No. 183/NAG/ 2018 (Asst_ Year 2010-11) 7 ITO, Ward-3(2} , Ground floor, Saraf Chambers, Mount Road, Sadar, Nagpur-440001 Vs. Shri Sanjeev Digambar Deshpande, Flat No, 22, Asawari Apartments North Ambazari Road, Nagpur-440019 PAN No. AAWPD96194 ITA No. 184/NAG/2018 (Asst. Year : 2013-14) ITO, Ward-3(2) , Vs. Shri Sachin Mahadeorao Ground floor, Saraf Bhagat; Chambers, Mount 35, Uroovela Colony, Warcha Road, Sadar; Road, Nagpur-440015 Nagpur-440001 PAN No_ AKAPB63OSB 3 ITA No- 1B5/NAG/2018 (Asst: Year : 2013-14} ITO, Ward-3(2), Vs. Shri Rajgopalan Vardhanchari, Ground floor, Saraf Arosh} Apartments, Spandan Chambers, Mount nagar; N-4 CIDCO, Road, Sadar, Aurangabad: Nagpur-440001 PAN No. AASOC949SR 2 ITA No: 186/NAG/ 2018 (Asst: Year : 2009-10} ITO, Ward-3(2) , Vs Shri Sudarshan Ramchand Ra Ground floor; Saraf Bokade, 271, Vivek Chambers, Sadar, Apartmetn; C B Road_ Nagpur-440001 Opposite Agricutture College Hostel, Ram Nagar, Nagpur 5 PAN No. ABBPB11S6C ITA No. 187/NAG/ 2018 (Asst: Year 2012-13) ITO , Ward-3(2), Vs. Shri Rehan Ahmed Azmi, Ground floor, Saraf G-2/103 Aman Heritage, Kato} Chambers; Sadar, Road Jafar Nagar, Nagpur Nagpur-440001 PAN No. AIAPA1903A ITA No. 188/NAG/ 2018 & CO No. 23/Nagpur / 2018 (Asst_ Year : 2010-11) 7-8 ITO, Ward-3(2), Ground floor, Saraf Chambers, Sadar; Nagpur-440001 Vs_ Shri Sheshrao Namdeorao Bhovar, A-8, Vrundavan Appartment Bharat Nagar, Amravati Road, Nagpur-440033 PAN No, ABQPB2764B ITA No. 189/NAG/ 2018 cO No- 16/Nagpur/ 2018 (Asst_ Year 2010-11) 9-10 ITO, Ward-3(2), Ground floor, Saraf Chamber; Sadar; Nagpur-440001 Vs. Shri Rajendra Prabhakar Thengdi; Plot No_ 40, Navodaya Appartments Chitale Marg, Dhantoii, Nagpur-440012 PAN No. AAPPT1458C 3 ITA Na. 19/NAG/ 2018 8 CO No. 17/Nagpur/2018 (Asst_ Year : 2011-12} 11- 12 ITO, Ward-3(2), Ground floor; Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur-44001 Vs. Shri Manoj N, Dongre, State Bank oF India, Computer Section; IlIrd floor, Kigsway, Nagpur-440001 PAN No_ ABHPD8468M ITA No. 191/NAG/ 2018 CO No. 18/Nagpur/2018 (Asst- Year : 2012-13) 13- 14 ITO, Ward-3(2) , Ground floor Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur-440001 Vs_ Shri Sudhir Vithalrao Kharbade, State Bank Of India_ Vivekanand Nagar, Nagpur- 440015 PAN No_ AAZPK648SC ITA No. 192/NAG/2018 & cQ No, 19/Nagpur/2018 (Asst: Year ; 2010-11) 15- 16 ITO, Ward-3(2} , Ground floor; Saraf Chambers, Mcunt Road; Sadar; Nagpur-440001 Vs. Smt Pushpa H: Nimje, 25, Gajanan Nagar, Behind Hindustan Colony, Wardh Road, Nagpur, Najpur- 440015 PAN No, AALPN6703C ITA No. 193/NAG/2018 (Asst. Year 2011-12) 17 ITO, Ward-3{2}, Ground floor Saraf Chambers, Mount Road; Sadar, Nagpur-440001 Vs Shri Anil Keshaorao Bhagat; C/305, Vaishali Apartment; Tilak Nagar, Nagpur-440010 PAN No_ ABBPBOS74G ITA No- 194/NAG/2018 & co No: 20/Nagpur/2018 (Asst_ Year ; 2010-11) 18 - 19 ITO, Ward-3(2), Ground floor, Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur-440001 Vs_ Shri Arvind Premchand Potdar; 73A, Mausam Society, Near-Departmental Representative. Rathi Clinic, Manish Nagar, Somalwada, Nagpur-440015 PAN No- ACPPPSOZIP ITA Nos. 195/NAG/ 2018 (Asst: Years : 2011-12) 20 ITQ_ Ward-3(2), Ground floor, Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur-440001 Vs_ Shri Subhash Udhaoraq Meshram, 429 A, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur-440009 PAN No, ABHPMSSOSG ITA No. 196/NAG/2018 8 CO No: 21/Nagpur/ 2018 (Asst: Year : 2013-14) 21- 22 ITO, Ward-3(2), Ground floor, Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur-440001 Vs. Shri Jolly Abraham; 48_ H.B. Estate, Sonegaon; Khamla, Nagpur, Nagpur-440072 PAN No_ ACEPA0325] ITA No- 197/NAG/2018 & CQ No: 22/Nagpur/2018 (Asst; Year 2013-14) 23- 24 ITO, Ward-3(2) , Ground floor, Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur-440001 Vs, Shri Gajendra Dashounath Sokusare, Plot No_ 30, Wankhede Lay Out Umrer; Umrer; Nagpur-441203 PAN No_ AEYPS34BSD 5 5 ITA No. 198/NAG/ 2018 (Asst. Year 4 2011-12) 25 ITO_ Ward-3(2), Graund flaof, Saraf Chambers; Sadar, Nagpur-440001 Vs_ Shri Gopal Shriram Band, Plot No: 60, Shivaji Nagar, Nagpur-440004 PAN No_ ABOPB4O37H ITA No- 199/NAG/2018 (Asst: Year : 2012-13) 26 ITO, Ward-3(2) , Ground floor, Saraf Chambers; Sadar, Nagpur-440001 Vs. Shri Rambhau Khisadya Taktewale_ 403-A, Rachana Vishwa Apartment; K.T Nagar; Katole Road_ Nagpur-440009 PAN No, ADDPTI2B1E ITA Nos; 200/NAG/ 2018 (Asst. Years 2010-11} 27 ITO, Ward-3(2), Ground floor, Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur-440001 Vs. Shri Anil Sukhdeo Nitnaware, 3-Nagsen Nagal, Bhim Chowk Nara Road, Nagpur-440014 PAN No_ ABYPN946SD ITA Nos. 201/NAG/2018 (Asst_ Year 2011-12) 28 ITO, Ward-3(2) , Graund floor, Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur-440001 Vs; Shri Ramkrishan Parashram Pimplikar,; 49 H.B. Estate, Sonegaon, Nagpur-440014 PAN No, ABVPP6274F ITA No. 202/NAG/ 2018 (Asst: Year : 2011-12) 29 ITO, Ward-3(2), Ground floor, Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur-44OOO1 Vs. Shri Subroto A. B. Mukherjee; House No- 130/6/A, Near Corporation, Library, Sadar, Nagpur-440014 PAN NO, ABZPM4935G 6 ITA No. 203/NAG/2018 (Asst, Year 2010-11) 30 ITO_ Ward-3(2} , Ground floor, Saraf Chambers; Sadar, Nagpur-440001 Vs_ Shri Hasandas Itstari Dhone; House No. 185/D/E, Vidya Nagar Near Modern Schaol; Kordi Road Nagpur-441111 PAN No, AAOPDS378C ITA No. 204/NAG/2018 (Asst: Year 2010-11) 31 ITO , Ward-3(2)} Ground floor; Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur-440001 Vs_ Shri Avinash Laxmikant Dani, Plot No. 39, Process Server Society, Swavalabai Nagar; Nagpur-440022 PAN No_ ABHPDZZOZL ITA No. 205/NAG/ 2018 (Asst. Year 2012-13) 32 ITO, Ward-3(2)5 Ground floor; Saraf Chambers, Sadar, Nagpur-440001 Vs Srnt Annapurani Venkatessan; Flat No 6, Sai Krupa Public Co-operative, Khamla Road, Sonegao Housing Society , Shankar Nagar, Nagpur-440010 PAN No. AAMPV6B6ZG ITA No. 206/NAG/2018 (Asst; Year : 2010-11) 33 ITO, Ward-3(2), Ground floor_ Saraf Chambers; Sadar, Nagpur-440001 Vs, Shri Uday Rajendra Panse M-13, Tapysya, 64 MIG Qtr. Nandanvan Colony, Nagpur- 440009 PAN No. AEOPPZZIID (Respondents} (Appellants) Date of pronouncement 28/11/2018 f QRD ER PER BENCH The above listed appeals at the instance of the Revenue are directed against the respective impugned orders passed by the respective Ld, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for respective Assessment Years as indicated above. 2, Since, the facts raised in ali the appeals filed by the revenue are identical, therefore for the sake of convenience; they are dubbed, heard and disposed of by this consolidated order; 3 First of all we take up appeal filed in ITA No_ 182/Nag/2018 far AY 2013-14 filed by revenue_ 4 At the very outset, our attention was drawn towards letter dated 30.07.2018 which relates to condonation of delay of 329 days in filing appeal before Honble ITAT. 5_ In this respect, Ld_ DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had decided the appeal filed by the assessee on 22.06.17 and later on, the revenue had sent the matter for taking legal opinion regarding filed of second appeal before Hon'ble ITAT. The Ld CIT(A)-2 in his letter dated 06.06.18 had recommended for filing second appeal before Hon'ble ITAT and thus in this way; there was a delay of 329 days in filing the present appeal: It was also submitted that the delay on the part of revenue is purely bonafide because of the aforementioned reasons. 6 On the other hand, Ld: AR requested for dismissal of the said application. 7_ We have heard the counsels for both the parties on the application for seeking condonation of delay and we have also perused the material placed on record a5 well as orders passed by the revenue authorities, we find that there is a low tax effect involved in this case and prima facie the appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable and needs to be dismissed in limine in view of the amount disputed by the Revenue is less than the monetary limit of Rs. 20 Iakh fixed by the CBDT in Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11/07/2018, whlch is in supersession of its Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10/12/2015, In relation to filing of appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; 8_ Even a5 per the submissions Qf the revenue for seeking condonation of delay; it has clearly been admitted that Ld. CIT(A) had passed order on 22.06.17 and it cannot be said that those orders passed by Ld: CIT(A) were not within the knowledge and notice of the revenue_ The only plea taken by the revenue is that in view of the order of Coordinate Bench of ITAT , the revenue had decided to seek legal opinion in respect of filing second a ippeal before the ITAT a5 previously the low tax effect involved in the matter. Further, the ACIT Range-3 had sent the matter for taking Iegal opinion regarding filing of appeal. 9 From the averments of the revenue, it is quite clear that the Coordinate Bench of ITAT had decided thie case titled State Bank Board of India Vrs DCIT on 04.04.10 i.e approximately 7 years prior to passing the order of Ld. CIT(A) in the present case_ Therefore this ground raised by the revenue did not hold bonafide; IO_ Further, the revenue has no where menticned that when the order in the case of State Bank Board Of India Vrs DCIT on 04.04.10 came to the knowledge and when again the matter was sent for seeking legal opinion: No such details have been L2 10 explained or mentioned by the revenue, but the revenue has preferred to only mentioning the letter dated 06.06.18 send by Ld, CIT(A)-2 to ACIT Range-3 for filing appeals, which was ultimately filed on 30.07.18_ 11. We find that the application filed by the revenue Is not even supported by any affidavit of any officials. It is an undisputed Fact that even in the case of State Bank Board of India Vrs DCIT, the revenue was of the party and even in the present case, the persons concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking '4p the matter by way Of flling the appeal before Tribunal, The revenue cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings, In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are af the view as to why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government Is a party before uS. 12 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Postmaster General V; Living Media India Ltd: (2012) 3 SCC 563, 11 deprecated the casual attitude of government has departments in taking steps to file appeals within reasonable time in the following words:
"
In spite of affording another opportunity to file better affidavit by placing adequate material, neither the person in-charge has filed the Department nor explanation for not applying the certified copy any prescribed period: The other dates within the the affidavit which we have already mentioned in extracted, clearly show that there was delay at every stage and except mentioning the dates of receipt of file and the decision taken, there i5 no the as to why such delay had occasioned. explanation stated by the Department that the Though it was due tounavoidable circumstances and delay was the fact remains that; from day genuine difficulties, one the Department or the person/persons concerned convinced diligence in prosecuting the have not matter to this Court by taking appropriate steps 27. It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned, well aware Or conversant with the issues were involved including the prescribed period of Iimitation for taking Up the matter by way of filing 3 special Feave petition in this Court: They cannot claim that separate period of limitation when the they have a 12 Department was possessed with competent "persons familiar with court proceedings. In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing & question why the delay i5 to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government Or a wing of the Government Is a party before uS.
Though we are conscious of the fact that in 3 matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence Or deliberate inaction or Iack Qf bongfide; 3 liberal concessian has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions; The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available; The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government: 29. In our view, it is the right time to inform al1 the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonqfide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several monthslyears due to considerable degree of 13 13 procedural red-tape in the process_ The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment: Condonation Of delay is an exception and should not be used a5 a anticipated benefit for government departments The law shelters everyone under the same light a should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. 30_ Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to u5, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. 13_ Apart from above in State of Uttar Pradesh V, Amar Nath Yadav (2014) 2 SCC 422 while reiterating the above decision, the Supreme Court declined to condone the delay of 481 days in the State filing a special leave petition against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, 14_ Consequently , We are not satisfied with the reasons for delay of 329 days in fling the appeal. Even otherwise on the JH 14 perusal of the record, we are prima facie of the view that the present appeal is not maintainable on account of low tax effect and needs to be dismissed in limine in view of the amount disputed by the Revenue is less than the monetary limit of Rs. 20 lakh fixed by the CBDT in Circular No. 03/2018, dated 11/07/2018, which is in supersession of its Circular No. 21/2015 dated 10/12/2015, in relation to filing of appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal: 15_ Thus in view cf our above discussion, we dismiss the application filed by the revenue for condonation of delay. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed_ 16, Since we have already decided the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No. 182/Nag/2018 for AY 2013-14 on merits and the grounds raised in other appeals are identical to that Qf appeal No. 182/ Nag/2018 Therefore following our own decision in ITA No_ 182/ Nag/2o18, we apply the same findings in other appeals filed by the revenue in order to maintain judicial consistency which is applicable mutatis mutandis. Resultantly, the other appeals filed by the revenue also stands dismissed, [5 15 17, In the net result; all the above listed appeats and Cross Objections filed by the Revenue as well as assessee stands dismissed. Registry Is directed to inform the parties accordingly. Order Pronounced in open Court on this 281 (h Nov, 2018_ Sdf - (G. MANJUNATKA) Accountant Member (SANDEEP GOSAIN) Judicial Member 28 th November, 2018. Dated Sr.PS.Dhananjay Copy to: 1 The Assessees 1} Shri Gowardhan D, Chakole 2- Shri Sanjeev Digambar Deshpande; Shri Sachin Mahadeorao Bhagat; 4) Shri Rajgopalan Vardhanchari, Aroshi Apartments 5} Shri Sudarshan Ramchand Ra Bokade 6} Shri Rehan Ahmed Azmi; 7) Shri Sheshrao Namdeorao Bhoyar 8) Shri Rajendra Prabhakar Thengdi; 9 Shri Manoj N, Dongre 10) Shri Sudhir Vithalrao Kharbade, 11) Smt; Pushpa H: Nimje, 12) Shri Anil Keshaorao Bhagat 13) Shri Arvind Premchand Potdar 14} Shri Subhash Udhaorao Meshram 15) Shri Jolly Abraham; 16) Shri Gajendra Dashounath Sokusare, 17} Shri Gopal Shriram Band 18} Shri Rambhau Khisadya Taktewale, 19) Shri Anil Sukhdeo Nitnaware, 20) Shri Ramkrishan Parashram 16 21} Shra Subroto A_ B. Mukherjee 22) Shri Hasandas Itstari Dhone 23} Shri Avinash Laxmikant Dani 24) Smt Annapurani Venkalessan, 25) Shri Uday Rajendra Panse 2 3 L4 The Revenve The CIT(A) Guard file. 3 The CIT: 5_ The D.R Nagpur. By order
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
