DINESH RAMDAS KIRVE,SATARA vs. ITO, SATARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1648/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 October 2025AY 2014-15Bench: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal ruled that the ld. CIT(A) erred by not accepting the medical certificate without specific disproving evidence. It directed the ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2014-15. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay, despite the assessee submitting a medical certificate for bed rest and an affidavit, and without confronting or cross-examining the certificate's validity.

What were the issues?

Whether the ld. CIT(A) was correct in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal despite a medical certificate, and the validity of the penalty show-cause notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 250,Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE

Before: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA & DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil Padvekar(Virtual)
For Respondent: Shri Sandeep P Sathe – JCIT
Hearing: 06/10/2025Pronounced: 09/10/2025

Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dinesh Ramdas Kirve, V The Income Tax Officer, At Post Kudal Post-Kudal, s Ward-4, Satara. Tal-Jaoli, Dist-Satara. Maharashtra – 415514. PAN: AAWOPK6845P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Tanzil Padvekar(Virtual) Revenue by Shri Sandeep P Sathe – JCIT Date of hearing 06/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 09/10/2025 आदेश/ ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal(NFAC) passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2014-15 dated 19.05.2025 emanating from the Penalty Order under section 271(1)(c)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 13.01.2022. The Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as under :

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law the Ld CIT(A) has decided the 1st appeal forgoing the facts that the quantum appeal against the impugned assessment order under sec. 147 is pending and yet to be decided though the said fact was brought to the notice of the Ld CIT(A) by response dated 03/05/2025.

2) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law the Ld CIT(A) has not taken into consideration the affidavit made by the assesse in respect of the undergoing treatment for the relevant period as submitted along with medical certificate.

3) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law the Ld CIT(A) has not taken into consideration the meritorious grounds of appeal but dismissed the appeal only on surmise of date of medical certificate and overlooking the period of treatment taken by the appellant.

4) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law the Ld CIT(A) has failed to confront or cross-examine the Medical certificate when he has doubt in mind regarding date of issue of certificate.

5) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law the Ld.CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the penalty show- cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) does not mention any of two limbs on which penalty was initiated that entails the notice bad-in-Law.

6) The appellant urge to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the CIT (A) in view of principles of natural justice taking in to consideration medical certificate and an affidavit dated 11/06/2025 made in support of confirmation of the date by the concerned Medical Practitioner.

7) The appellant craves leave to modify/ alter/ revise or add any of the ground as above.” 2 Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal. In para 6.3 of the order of ld.CIT(A), the ld.CIT(A) has stated that Assessee filed a Medical Certificate of Doctor Jagtap Hospital, wherein it has been mentioned that Assessee was advised bedrest from 01.04.2021.

2.1 However, ld.CIT(A) though referred to the Medical Certificate, held that it was not sufficient cause.

3.

We have perused the impugned Medical Certificate issued by Dr.T.S.Jagtap, MD, Medicine. We are of the opinion that once a Qualified Doctor has certified the illness and advised rest, there is no reason to doubt such medical certificate, unless specific evidence is available with ld.CIT(A). No specific evidence has been brought on record by ld.CIT(A) to disprove the medical certificate. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that there was sufficient cause. Accordingly, we direct ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide the opportunity to the Assessee. The Assessee shall file necessary details before the ld.CIT(A). 3

4.

It is important to mention here that the present appeal was against Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) and we have been told by ld.AR that appeal against Quantum Addition is pending before ld.CIT(A).

5.

Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 09th October, 2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →