Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file an income tax return for AY 2011-12. Information revealed significant investments in mutual funds (Rs. 1.04 Crs) and credit card payments (Rs. 4.69 Lakhs). The case was reopened under Section 147, and an assessment was completed under Section 144 read with Section 147, adding unexplained investments. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal, citing a 26-day delay in filing.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessment order, although passed on 28.12.2018, was manually served on 29.01.2019. Considering the date of manual service, the appeal filed by the assessee on 22.02.2019 was within the prescribed time limits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for a decision on the merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) correctly calculated the limitation period for filing an appeal, specifically when the assessment order was served manually, and if the appeal was indeed filed with delay.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 142(1), 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year : 2011-12 Uma Jagdish Hiremath, Vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Pune. Flat No.1201, “C" Blue Bird Housing Society, Near Jain Hostel, Dhotre Path, Model Colony, Pune- 411016. PAN : ACBPH4815R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue by Shri Arvind Desai : Date of hearing : 26.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2011-12.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not furnished his return of income. On the basis of information that the assessee had invested a sum of Rs.1,04,10,000/- in various mutual funds and also paid a sum of Rs.4,69,097/- towards Bank of Baroda Credit Card payment but 147 and notices u/s 148 and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. In response to the above notices, the assessee furnished reply wherein it was claimed by the assessee that the investments are made in her name being first holder and the payments were made from her husband’s account i.e. Dr. Jagdish Hiremath (PAN – AAHPH1850N) who is regular tax payer and assessed to income tax for last 30 years. Not being satisfied with the reply of the assessee since documentary evidence was not produced before the Assessing Officer, the assessment was completed on 28.12.2018 u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 on a total income of Rs.1,08,79,097/- as against no return filed by the assessee. The above assessed income includes unexplained investments of Rs.1,08,79,097/-.
Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee since there was delay of 26 days in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before the Bench that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by treating the same as filed belatedly i.e. with the delay of 26 days. Ld. AR submitted before the Bench that the assessment order was passed on 28.12.2018 but the copy of order was manually supplied to him on 28.01.2019 and the appeal was required to be filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of order and accordingly the appeal was filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on 22.02.2019. Since the ex-parte assessment order was served manually by hand to the assessee on 28.01.2019, the appeal was required to be filed on or before 27.02.2019 and in instant case the appeal was filed on 22.02.2019 i.e. quite within the time limits prescribed under the Statute. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and further requested to direct Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the appeal on merits of the case.
Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same.
We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the affidavit furnished by the assessee. We find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal due to the reason of delay of 26 days in filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. It was contended by the assessee that 28.12.2018 but the same was manually served on him on 29.01.2019, therefore, according to the assessee the appeal was filed within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and there is no such delay as alleged by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. In this regard, we find that the assessment order was passed on 28.12.2018 and even if we presume that the assessment order was served on the same day, the appeal was required to be filed on 27.01.2019. However, the same does not appear to be practical since the assessment order was passed manually by ITO, Ward-3(5), Pune. Therefore, it is just not possible to serve the order on the very same day. Therefore, we find force in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the order was served by hand/manually to the assessee on 28.01.2019, since it was not passed online but was passed manually by the Assessing Officer. Since the manual assessment order was served to the assessee on 28.01.2019, the due date for filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC will be on or before 27.02.2019 and in the instant case the assessee has already filed first appeal on 22.02.2019 before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the same appears to be within prescribed time limits. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & remand the matter back to his file with a