DR HEDGEWAR SMRUTI RUGNA SEVA MANDIR, HINGOLIE,HINGOLI vs. DCIT, CIR-AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1531/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 July 2025AY 2019-20Bench: Dr. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was for reasonable cause and condoned it. Consequently, all issues, including the merits of the additions and the jurisdictional challenge to the reassessment proceedings, were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an Educational Trust, failed to file a return of income for AY 2019-20. A reassessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 on 22.04.2022, adding Rs. 39,26,710 to its income. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, which was filed with a 142-day delay, as time-barred.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the 142-day delay in filing the appeal, and whether the reassessment proceedings u/s 147/148 were valid, particularly concerning compliance with Section 151A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139,Section 144,Section 147,Section 148,Section 151A,Section 250

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, SMC BENCH, PUNE

Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B Phadke
For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar
Hearing: 09.07.2025

Assessee by : Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue by : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT Date of hearing : 09.07.2025 Date of : 15.07.2025 pronouncement आदेश/ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2019-20 is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, (NFAC) Delhi u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 30.04.2025 which in turn is arising out of the Assessment Order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 dated 24.02.2024 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- General ground 1. The learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming the appellant's income assessed by the learned AO, amounting to Rs. 39,26,710 as income from other sources in the reassessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 passed dated on 24- 02-2024.

Technical grounds 2. The learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in law and fact in dismissing appellant's appeal in limine by not condoning delay of 142 days in filing the appeal by the appellant. The appellant contends that the delay in filing the appeal was genuine and unintentional and as such, same ought to have been condoned considering communication gaps and lack of knowledge about I-T proceedings and ITBA portal.

3.

The learned jurisdictional AO (JAO) erred in law and on facts in assuming jurisdiction by issuing notice u/s 148 of the ITA, 1961 as the same is not in accordance with provisions of section 151A of ITA, 1961. Appellant contends that, as per CBDT Notification issued under section 151A of ITA, 1961, notice u/s 148 of ITA, 1961 ought to have been issued by National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC) and not by JAO and the same has also been upheld in the pronouncement in case of Hexaware Technologies Limited v/s ACIT (Bombay HC-162 taxmann.com 225). As such, the appellant contends that the present reassessment proceedings are bad in law and ought to be quashed.

4. Appellant contends that, Appellant is keen to ensure complete and total compliance as so required, and the present situation is simply a fall-out of a communication gap. Appellant contends that appellant wants that the case to be decided on the merits and as such, the present order may please be set aside. Grounds on merits 5. Appellant contends that the appellant has incurred a deficit amounting to Rs. 2,34,395 during the year under consideration after considering interest income.

6. Appellant contends that the learned AO erred in taxing the interest income on a stand-alone basis without granting deduction of expenses relating to activity of Appellant. Appellant contends that such a one-sided process leads to double taxation.

7.

On an alternative and without prejudice basis, the appellant contends that the interest income was only Rs. 27,10,000 whereas, addition made / confirmed by CIT(A) was Rs. 39,26,710.

8.

The appellant craves leave to add/modify/amend/delete all / any of the grounds of appeal.

3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. He submitted that the delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) was for reasonable cause and deserves to be condoned. He also requested that the issue on merits may please be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication on merits.

4.

On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the lower authorities.

5.

I have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. The assessee is an Educational Trust. No return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act. Even no return filed in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Re-assessment proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 144 completed on 22.04.2022 making various additions of Rs. 39,26,710/- There was a delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and the same was on account of lack of knowledge at the end of the office staff for carrying out the further process of filing appeal. It was only when the trustee came to know about the additions that the delayed appeal was filed before Ld. CIT(A). However even there was a reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal, in my considered view Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay. Therefore in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, I hereby condone the delay in filing of appeal by assessee before Ld. CIT(A) and restore back all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication 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 unnecessary 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 15th day of July, 2025.

More judgments on Section 139

All 3,629 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →