Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee is an agriculturist who failed to appear before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings under Section 147 and before the CIT(A). The appeal was filed with a delay of 399 days due to alleged lack of proper guidance from the tax consultant.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that the assessee's explanation of reasonable cause was satisfactory. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned on the grounds of reasonable cause, and whether the assessment proceedings should be restored for denovo assessment.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD
आदेश / ORDER
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 20.03.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 30.08.2019 passed u/s.144 r.w.s147 of the Act.
Registry has informed that there is delay of 399 days in preferring the instant appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeal.
After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the affidavit, I am satisfied that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time. I therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court Maya Rajendra Kumbhar Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 399 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for providing one more opportunity to go before ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer stating that the assessee could not make proper compliance before the lower authorities. He further stated that the assessee is an Agriculturist and was not well guided by the Tax Consultant about the assessment proceedings and therefore prayed for one more opportunity to file the requisite details in support of its grounds of appeal.
On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.
6. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I find that assessee in the instant case failed to appear before ld. Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act for A.Y. 2012-13 which was initiated on the basis of information about cash deposit of Rs.10,95,000/- in the bank account of the assessee held with The Baramati Sah. Bank Ltd. Due to non- compliance, ld. AO concluded the proceedings passing best judgment assessment u/s.147 r.w.s.144 by making addition of total cash deposit of Rs.10,95,000/-. However, before ld.CIT(A) assessee failed to appear. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed that the assessee is an Agriculturist and not well versed with income-tax provisions and technicalities and further was not guided well by the Tax Consultant. Under these facts and circumstances, I hereby deem it proper to Maya Rajendra Kumbhar restore the issues raised on merit to the file of ld. JAO for denovo assessment. Needless to mention that ld.JAO in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is hereby set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 26th day of August, 2025.