MANDA SHIVAJI PAWAR,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-8(3), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 481/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 May 2025AY 2016-17Bench: DR.MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 198 days, finding a reasonable cause due to the non-communication from the tax consultant. The Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income for AY 2016-17 declaring Rs. 8,490/-. The assessment was completed at Rs. 29,68,490/- after adding Rs. 29,60,000/- as unexplained money. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for a delay of 198 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was caused by a reasonable cause, and if so, whether the appeal should be restored to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Ms. Kimaya Kudva
Hearing: 05.05.2025Pronounced: 13.05.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 30.12.2014 passed by Addl/JCIT(A)-11, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment order dated 23.12.2018 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act.

2.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1. The learned ADDL/JCIT (A)-11 Delhi (hereinafter referred to as learned CIT(A)] erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 29,60,000/- made to the returned income of the appellant amounting to Rs. 8,490/- thereby assessing the total income of the appellant at Rs. 29,68,490/-.

2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the appellant's appeal on account of delay of 198 days in filling appeal memo. Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the delay in filing the appeal memo was caused due to the genuine reason that appellant was not aware of the receipt of the assessment order which was served on the email of erstwhile tax consultant who did not communicate the receipt of such order to the appellant.

3.

The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 29,60,000/- on account of cash deposit in Bank of Maharashtra without appreciating that cash deposits were out of proceeds from sale of immovable property.

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

3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CITA) has not dealt with merits of the case and has dismissed the appeal in limine on account of delay of 198 days in filing of the appeal before ld.CIT(A). A prayer is made to condone the delay and remit the issue on merits to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication to which ld. Departmental Representative did not oppose this request.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We notice that the assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 declaring income of Rs.8,490/- in the return furnished on 27.07.2016. Case processed u/s.143(1) but thereafter selected for limited scrutiny under CASS followed by validly serving of notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. Case of the assessee was scrutinised for examining the sources of cash deposit of Rs.29,60,000/-. Though the assessee made submission before the ld. AO but failed to succeed resulting into addition of Rs.29,60,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and assessing the income at Rs.29,68,490/-. Thereafter, assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 198 days. Reasons for the delay was submitted in Form No.35 as per which it was stated that on the income-tax portal e-mail id of the tax consultant was mentioned and therefore assessee could not receive any communication about the passing of the assessment order. It was only after receiving the notice of demand, assessee came to know of passing of the assessment order and he immediately filed appeal. On going through the above, we find that there was ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. We therefore condone the delay of 198 days occurred before ld.CIT(A) as the non-representation on part of the tax consultant should not be fatal to the assessee, depriving the assessee to hear on merits of the case.

5.

We therefore considering the facts and circumstance of the case and in the larger interest of justice deem it proper to restore the issues to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Assessee is directed to provide latest email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the 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 13th day of May, 2025.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →