Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) with a significant delay because the assessment and penalty orders were passed under an old, deactivated PAN. The assessee had been allotted a new active PAN but was unable to e-file due to the old PAN being inactive.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) finding that it was not intentional and was due to a reasonable cause. The Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was intentional or due to a reasonable cause, and if the delay is condoned, should the appeals be restored for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
250, 271(1)(c), 143(3), 254, 147, 144, 144B, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & MS.ASTHA CHANDRA
आदेश / ORDER
PER BENCH :
The captioned appeals at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2018-19 and 2019-20 are directed against the separate orders 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 respective Assessment/Penalty Orders.
On the face of the appeal files, Registry has mentioned that there is delay in filing all the instant appeals. We however, going through the records find that the assessee was required to file the appeals within one month from the end of the month in which the impugned orders have been passed. Perusal of the record indicates that the assessee has to 275/PUN/2025 Ashok Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. filed the instant appeals within the prescribed time limit and therefore there is no delay in filing of the appeals.
At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in all the impugned orders ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeals being barred by limitation. Ld. Counsel while referring to the reasons giving rise to the delay stated that the assessee was allotted PAN bearing No.AACCA3452B. While applying for this PAN, there was some mistake in the application and in place of the ‘Association of Persons’ assessee wrongly mentioned ‘Company’. Subsequently, assessee applied another PAN and was allotted PAN No. AACAA2410P and the old PAN No. AACCA3452B was cancelled/deactivated. However, the assessment and penalty orders in question before us have been passed under the old PAN and the assessee was unable to e-file the appeals before ld.CIT(A) on this old PAN because it was deactivated. It was only after continuous pursuance and request made to the Department that finally the assessee was able to file the instant appeals. All this process took long time resulting into the delay in filing of the appeals. He submitted that delay is not intentional and the same deserves to be condoned and the issues raised in the instant appeals may please be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication on merits.
On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the orders of the lower authorities but was fair enough in not opposing the request of the assessee for restoring the issues to the file of ld.CIT(A). to 275/PUN/2025 Ashok Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The instant appeals are for various assessment years of which some are against the additions made by ld. Assessing Officer and some are against the Penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and the details are as under:
.Y. Assessment Penalty order passed order passed u/s. u/s. 270/PUN/2025 2009-10 -- 271(1)(c) 271/PUN/2025 2009-10 143(3)r.w.s.254 -- 272/PUN/2025 2010-11 -- 271(1)(c) 273/PUN/2025 2010-11 143(3)r.w.s.254 -- 274/PUN/2025 2018-19 147 r.w.s.144 -- r.w.s.144B 275/PUN/2025 2019-20 147 r.w.s.144 -- r.w.s.144B
Now from perusal of the impugned orders, we notice that there was inordinate delay in filing all the appeals before ld.CIT(A). For instance, for A.Y. 2009-10, there was delay of 873 days in filing of the appeal before ld.CIT(A) against the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act against which the assessee has filed the appeal which is numbered as ITA No.270/PUN/2025. Similar is the situation for all the other appeals and ld.CIT(A) has dismissed appeals in limine by not condoning the delay.
Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to the reasons mentioned in the impugned orders and the reasons provided for the said delay is that the Assessment Orders/Penalty Orders were framed in the old PAN No.AACCA3452B which was cancelled/de-activated whereas the assessee has subsequently been allotted PAN No. AACAA2410P and the same is active. Assessee is filing all its returns under the new PAN No. AACAA2410P. However for to 275/PUN/2025 Ashok Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. the impugned assessment years, ld. Assessing Officer has framed the assessment orders/penalty orders under the old PAN. Assessee in order to e-file the appeals before ld.CIT(A) has tried many times but due to the PAN being inactive assessee was not able to proceed to e-file the appeals. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has demonstrated with relevant details about the communication between the assessee and the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer regarding the problem faced in e-filing the appeals.
After hearing both the sides and perusing the circumstances which led to filing of the appeals by the assessee before ld.CIT(A), we find that the delay was not intentional and assessee would not have gained by filing the appeals with delay before ld.CIT(A). We are therefore satisfied that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeals before ld.CIT(A) within the stipulated time. In order to subserve the cause of justice, we hereby condone the delay occurred in filing all the appeals before ld.CIT(A) in light of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme 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). Since ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with the issues raised in appeal, we deem it proper to restore all the issues raised in the instant appeals to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. to 275/PUN/2025 Ashok Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). Assessee is directed to update 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 orders are set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this bunch of appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing to 275/PUN/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 23rd day of July, 2025.