MOHAN TRYAMBAK PAWAR,NASHIK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, , NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2521/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 July 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 341 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, considering the reasonable cause and the Supreme Court's judgment. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the issue on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order was dismissed by the CIT(A)/NFAC in limine due to a delay of 341 days. The delay occurred because the penalty order was served on an old email ID of the consultant, especially during the Covid-19 period, and the assessee was unaware of it.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC can be condoned and if the matter should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M. Joshi, Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Hearing: 24.06.2025Pronounced: 14.07.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER MANISH BORAD, AM:

1.

This appeal filed at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC u/s 250 of the Act dated 09.09.2024 which is arising out of the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for Assessment Year 2011-12 framed on 20.12.2016 by the ACIT, Circle-2, Nashik.

2.

The issue in the instant appeal relates to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. However Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, stated that on account of delay of 341 days in filing of the appeal against the penalty order on account of serving the assessment order on the old email ID belonging to the consultant during Covid-19 period resulting into the dismissal of the assessee’s appeal by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in limine, he only prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to examine the issue on merits.

3.

Ld. DR did not object the prayer of the assessee.

4.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The issue raised in this appeal against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 01.02.2022. As per the submission made before us, the penalty order dated 01.02.2022 was served on the email ID i.e. jainsuryawanshi@yahoo.com which belonged to the old consultant and that too during the Covid-19 period but the assessee did not receive any communication from tax consultant regarding the passing of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’s order.

Later when the assessee came to know then he immediately filed the appeal with the delay of 341 days. Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone the delay.

5.

We however considering the facts of the case and that of the reasonable cause prevented the assessee from filing the appeal and also taking the consideration laid down by the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) INSC 382 dated 21.03.2025, condone the delay of 341 days in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.

However, since Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not dealt with merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to remit back the issue to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention here that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee as contemplated in section 250(6) of the Act.

All the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the instant appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced on 14th day of July, 2025.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →