PAVAN BUILCON PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 4(5), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1317/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 July 2025AY 2013-14Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 721-day delay, citing the reasons provided and a liberal approach. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a private limited company engaged in construction and real estate, filed an appeal against an ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The appeal was delayed by 721 days due to the director's parents' ill health and subsequent demise, causing him mental disturbances.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, and if the CIT(A) order, passed ex-parte during the pandemic, should be set aside to provide another opportunity to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B BENCH, PUNE

Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate
For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva
Hearing: 28.07.2025

Assessee by : Shri Sarang Gudhate Revenue by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 28.07.2025 Date of : 30.07.2025 pronouncement आदेश/ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A),NFAC, Delhi dated 14.03.2023 which is arising out of the Assessment order for A.Y. 2013-14 framed on 31.03.2016 u/s 143(3) of the Act by ITO Ward-4(5), Pune.

2.

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 721 days. Affidavit alongwith application for condonation of delay has been filed. Both sides have been heard. We note that the main reason of the delay was on account of the ill health of Director Mr. Rupesh Gurunna Hattalli Parents. Both Parents of Mr. Rupesh Gurunna expired in the year 2022 and 2024 and this caused him mental disturbances. Considering the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay and also taking a liberal and justice oriented approach and in the light of judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others(1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) (Supreme Court) The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay of 721 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3.

At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned order is ex-parte and most of the notices were sent during Covid-19 Pandemic period. Prayer made for providing one more opportunity of going back before Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication of issues on merits.

4.

On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the assessee supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

5.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Assessee is a Private Limited Company and engaged in the business of Construction and Real Estate. Rs. 23,19,872/- declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 e-filed on 23.11.2013. The case selected for scrutiny and in assessment proceedings completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the tune of Rs. 10,17,79,275/- Assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A)

Ld. CIT(A) running into 7 years, on few occasions assessee failed to reply resulting into dismissal of assessee’s appeal. Considering the facts of the case and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and set aside the impugned order and restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and to pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 30th day of July, 2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →