SHELKE CONSTRUCTIONS AND M/S YASH BUILDERS AND CUNSTRUCTION CO ,JALGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(1) , JALGAON
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice. The matters of quantum addition and penalty were remitted back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, with a direction to afford the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a partnership firm, failed to appear before the AO for assessment year 2018-19 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to an ex-parte assessment order with an addition of Rs. 84,10,694/- and a penalty of Rs. 12,99,452/-. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to delay.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the quantum addition and penalty warrant fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeals at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 relate to quantum addition as well as penalty and are directed against the separate orders dated 26.12.2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed both the appeals of the assessee on account of delay in filing the appeal and has not dealt with merits of the case and thus prayed that the matters may be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Reference made to the affidavit given before ld.CIT(A) mentioning the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. Ld. Departmental Representative was fair enough in not opposing this request. and 223/PUN/2025 Shelke Construction and M/s. Yash Builders and Construction Co.
We have heard both the sides and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessee is a partnership firm, furnished its income-tax return for A.Y. 2018-19 on 31.10.1980 declaring income of Rs.1,43,740/-. Case selected for complete scrutiny for the Contract receipts or Fees. Assessee failed to appear before the ld. AO even after proper notices of hearing were issued. However, the reason for non-appearance was on account of covid-19 pandemic prevailing across the country at that point of time and the notices of hearing given by the AO were given fixing the date of hearing on 01.12.2020, 18.12.2020 and 29.12.2020. Due to non-compliance, assessment order was passed ex parte u/s.144 of the Act making addition of Rs.84,10,694/- and Ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s.270A of the Act which finally culminated vide order dated 14.09.2021 as per which penalty of Rs.12,99,452/- was levied. Penalty order was also passed during the covid-19 pandemic period.
The assessee assailed both the exparte orders relating to quantum and penalty before the ld.CIT(A) but there was delay in filing of the appeal. Most part of the delay was on account of covid-19 pandemic period and the remaining part of the delay was on account of notices which were sent to the Jalgaon office which was closed by the said time. The reason for closure of the office was that the assessee firm has incorporated as specific purpose vehicle for doing contract work at Jalgaon for the Indian Railways. Work was completed during F.Y. 2019-10 and the major part of the execution work was done by the Joint Venture partner Baban Rao Dagadu Shelke located at Pune. and 223/PUN/2025 Shelke Construction and M/s. Yash Builders and Construction Co.
Under these given facts and circumstances and in the larger interest of justice, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A. Since the issues have not been adjudicated by the ld.CIT(A) we deem it appropriate to remit the issues of quantum addition as well as the issue of penalty to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall afford due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised on merits in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 06th day of May, 2025.
More judgments on Section 270A
- Kamleshkumar Somalal Bhatt, Himatnagar vs Income Tax Ofifcer, Ward 1, HimatnagarITA 2130/AHD/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Haresh Sharma, Ahmedabad vs ITO, Ward 5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2125/AHD/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2019-2020
- Kkg Associates, Visakhapatnam vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)…ITA 345/VIZ/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Rama Naidu Gutha, Anantapur vs ITO, Ward -1, AnantapurITA 1895/HYD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026