Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee company, engaged in horticulture, floriculture, agriculture, and forestry, sold an immovable property for Rs. 1,27,62,500/- but did not file a return of income. The case was reopened under Section 147, and assessments were completed under Section 144, determining income at Rs. 4,39,37,500/-.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without considering the merits. The Tribunal found that the delay was attributable to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the evidence presented regarding the timely filing of appeal fees and the postal receipt.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without condoning it and deciding the case on merits.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 142(1), 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year : 2011-12 Pittie Agro Ventures Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 702, 7th Floor, Onyx 2(3), Pune. Building, Pune City, Pune H.O., Pune- 411001. PAN : AABCP1215A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rajiv Thakkar & Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Revenue by : Shri Shashank Ojha Date of hearing : 21.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 31.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A), Pune-12 [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2011-12.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company engaged in the business of horticulture floriculture agriculture farming and forestry. On the basis of information that the assessee company has sold immovable property Rs.1,27,62,500/- and has not furnished its return of income for the period under consideration the case was reopened u/s 147 and statutory notices u/s 148 and u/s 142(1) were issued to the assessee. The assessee neither attended the hearing nor furnished any reply. Therefore, in the absence of any explanation/ submission with regard to sale of various immovable properties & receipt of unaccounted money in cash the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act on the basis of material and information available on record. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 31.12.2018 determined total income at Rs.4,39,37,500/- as against no income shown by the assessee.
Being aggrieved with the above action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Since the appeal was apparently filed with the delay of 1419 days, Ld. CIT(A) without going into the merits of the case dismissed the appeal without condoning the above said delay.
It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that Ld. CIT(A), without going into the merits of the case, has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee since apparently the appeal was filed belatedly i.e. with the delay of 1419 days. In this regard, we find that it is the claim of the assessee that the assessee has paid appeal fees of Rs.1,000/- on 21.02.2019 by challan and since the login password could not be retrieved a manual appeal was prepared in Form 35 and was sent through post to Ld. CIT(A), Pune. Copy of Postal Receipt dated 01.04.2019 and copy of manual appeal in Form 35 along with grounds of appeal
is produced before the Bench. It was the contention of Ld. counsel of the assessee that after sending the appeal through post the assessee was under the impression that the appeal must have reached the office of Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, Covid
19. Pandemic arrived and when no notice was received by the assessee till February 2023, he enquired and was informed that his manual appeal not reached to the office of Ld. CIT(A). The assessee immediately filed an online appeal along with a delay condonation application duly supported by an affidavit. However, Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the request for condoning the delay and without going into the merits of the case dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. In this regard, we find that admittedly challan for appeal fees Rs.1,000/- was deposited on 21.02.2019 and postal receipt dated 01-04-2019 was also produced before Ld. CIT(A) as well as before us, therefore we find some force in the arguments of Ld. counsel of the assessee that the manual appeal was also prepared and sent through India Post may be with a small delay of 60 days. We also find that Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the fact of depositing challan of Rs.1,000/- in February 2019 & copy of postal receipt dated 01.04.2019 which is the bone of the contention of Ld. counsel of the assessee and without verifying the correctness of the above postal receipt Ld. CIT(A) rejected the contentions raised by the assessee. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that Ld. ought to have condoned the delay & have decided the appeal on merits of the case rather than dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay.
6. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and in view of our above discussion, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to his file with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on merits of the case after providing