SHRI MAHALAXMI NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 8(3) PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2701/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 March 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 559-day delay in filing the appeal, considering the circumstances and the precedent set in Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Kattji. The issue of merits was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit documents.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed against assessment orders for AY 2015-16 and 2017-18. The assessee did not appear for hearings before the CIT(A)/NFAC, resulting in ex-parte orders. There was a significant delay in filing the appeal, attributed to the society members' lack of tax law knowledge and reliance on a tax consultant.

What were the issues?

Whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal and whether to restore the issue of merits to the lower authority for fresh adjudication after the assessee failed to appear for hearings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144

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, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar
Hearing: 10.03.2025Pronounced: 24.03.2025

ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM: Both the above captioned appeals filed at the instance of assessee are directed against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 09.06.2023 & 15.05.2023 which are arising out of the assessment orders u/s 143(3) & 144 of the Act for Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2017-18 framed on 16.12.2017 & 17.12.2019 by the ITO, Wart-8(4), Pune respectively.

2.

When the case was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Even on previous date of hearing fixed on 23.01.2025 and 13.02.2025 none appeared. We therefore proceed to adjudicate both the appeals with the able assistance of Ld. Departmental Representative and available records.

1.

A.Y. 2015-16 : 3. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 559 days in filing of the instant appeal. The applicant is a Manager of Co- operative Housing Society which is the assessee. As per the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay, the committee members are not well versed with the tax laws and are dependent upon the tax consultant and for appointment of such tax consultant, certain formalities and the meetings of the members is to be carried out. Considering the fact that the assessee society would not have gained by filing this appeal belatedly and also in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Kattji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 559 days and admit the appeal for hearing on merits.

4.

A perusal of the records indicates that the impugned order is ex-parte and assessee failed to avail the opportunity granted by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.

5. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.

6.

We have heard Ld. DR and perused the records placed before us. We notice that the dates of hearing granted by Ld. CIT(A) are 27.12.2019, 31.12.2019, 23.01.2020, 29.12.2020, 21.03.2022, 16.05.2023 and 23.05.2023. We further notice that most of the hearings are falling during Covid-19 restriction period. Therefore, considering the facts of the case and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not being able to avail the opportunity of hearing, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue of merits to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication to be carried out after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and also consider submissions, documents, details etc to be furnished by the assessee at the time of hearing. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal

raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

1.

7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in for A.Y. 2015-16 is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →