SHRIRANG GOVIND PHADTARE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 10(1), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 18/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 March 2025AY 2016-17Bench: DR.MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 113 days in filing the penalty appeal, noting that the quantum appeal for the same year was also restored. The issue was remitted to the NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's penalty appeal was dismissed in limine by the NFAC due to a delay of 113 days. The assessee submitted that a similar quantum appeal for the same assessment year was restored by the Tribunal after condoning the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the penalty appeal should be condoned, and if so, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke
For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Hearing: 03.03.2025Pronounced: 10.03.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order dated 18.11.2024 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi which inturn is arising out of the Penalty order dated 16.09.2022 u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.

2.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the instant penalty appeal for the A.Y. 2016-17 there was delay of 113 days before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the penalty appeal of the assessee in limine, by not condoning the delay. It is further submitted that the Tribunal in the quantum appeal filed by the assessee for has restored the matter back to the file of ld.CIT(A) condoning the delay occurred therein for similar reasons. Copy of the Tribunal order is placed on record. It is therefore prayed that the delay of 113 days before the ld.CIT(A) be condoned and remit back the issue on merits for denovo adjudication.

3.

After hearing both the sides and perusing the record placed before us and the Tribunal order, we find that the quantum appeal filed by the assessee for the A.Y. 2016-17 has already been restored back by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.02.2025 to the file of ld.CIT(A) after condoning the delay. Considering the same and having no objection from the side of ld. Departmental Representative for remission of the issue on merits to the file of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, we condone the delay of 113 days before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. In view thereof, the issue of merits is being remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication afresh. Assessee is at liberty to file any evidence as he deems expedient and ld.CIT(A)/NFAC shall pass the order interms of provisions of section 250(6) of the Act after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing and in accordance with law.

Assessee is directed to provide correct email id to the department for receiving the hearing notices from the ITBA portal. Assessee is further directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of ld.CIT(A) are set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 10th day of March, 2025.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →