RAMESH SHANKARRAO WAGH,PUNE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 8(3), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1994/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 October 2025AY 2022-23Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had previously held belated filing of Form 3CFA to be a procedural error and allowed relief. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual with income from a patent, filed a return declaring Rs. 65,97,620. The return was processed under section 143(1), but the special rate under section 115BBF was not applied due to the absence of Form 3CFA. Despite rectification attempts and appeals, the relief was denied.

What were the issues?

Whether the belated filing of Form 3CFA constitutes a procedural error that should not deny the benefit of special tax rates, and whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the CPC's denial of relief.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 115BBF,Section 139(1),Section 154,Section 143

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Divyesh Tripathi
For Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar (Virtual)
Hearing: 30.10.2025Pronounced: 31.10.2025

Assessment Year : 2022-23 Ramesh Shankarrao Wagh, Vs. Assessing Officer, Rohan Tarang, Wakad B.O., Ward-8(3), Pune. Man, Pune- 415107. PAN : AABPW3867A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Divyesh Tripathi Revenue by : Shri Vinod Pawar (Virtual) Date of hearing : 30.10.2025 Date of pronouncement : 31.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.03.2025 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Chandigarh [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2022-23.

2.

There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual having income from patent & has furnished its return of income on 29.07.2022 by declaring an income of Rs.65,97,620/-. Vide intimation dated 13.03.2023 the return was processed u/s 143(1) and income tax at normal rate instead of special rate as per section 115BBF was calculated on the income from patent, since Form 3CFA was not available with the CPC which was required to be filed on or before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. On receipt of above intimation, the assessee filed Form 3CFA & applied for rectification u/s 154 of the Act before CPC. Vide order dated 22.03.2023 CPC issued another intimation however desired relief was not given to the assessee.

4.

Being aggrieved with the action of the CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and after considering the reply Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and confirmed the intimation order passed by the CPC.

5.

It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

6. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the copy of order passed by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of assessee himself for assessment year 2020-21 involving the similar issue. It was the contention of Ld. counsel of the assessee that under the identical facts & in similar circumstances a coordinate bench of this Tribunal has already accepted the contention of the assessee and remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer in the case of Ramesh Shankarrao Wagh vs. Jurisdictional Officer, Pune order dated 23-07-2025 by observing as under :- “5.1 Thus, ITAT has observed that it is a procedural error and Assessee should be allowed to file the Form during the pendency of appeal. Respectfully following the ITAT Indore’s Decision in the case of Shri Yashwant Singh Pawar (supra), we set-aside the order u/s.143 of the Act, to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. The Assessing Officer shall consider the Form No.3CFA filed by assessee electronically and decide the matter accordingly. The Assessee shall be provided opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.”

7. Respectfully following the above decision passed by a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of assessee himself wherein similar issue was adjudicated & belated filing of Form 3CFA was held to be only a procedural error & relief was allowed

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →