VISHNU VARDHAN CHERUVU,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSION OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1522/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 July 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 333 days, stating it was due to a reasonable cause. Since the merits of the case were not dealt with by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the appeal was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication, and the assessee was to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The appeal was filed with a delay of 333 days, which the assessee attributed to their tax consultant.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC should be condoned and if the matter should be restored for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal (Virtual)
For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Hearing: 10.07.2025Pronounced: 10.07.2025

ORDER

PER MANISH BORAD, AM:

1.

This appeal filed at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 17.04.2025 relevant to A.Y. 2019-20.

2.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone the delay of 333 days and also did not provide an opportunity to provide the reasons for delay. It is also submitted that the delay was on account of tax consultant who is looking after the taxation work. Ld. DR has not raised any objection if the delay is condoned and matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →