SMT. ASHA D. PATIL,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(1), JALGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 480/PUN/2020Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 November 2022AY 2013-143 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 in filing the appeals, citing the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic and the principle of substantial justice. The penalty appeals were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed against penalty orders under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2013-14. The quantum issues for the same assessment year had been restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the penalty appeals should be condoned, and whether the penalty appeals should be adjudicated afresh in light of the restored quantum issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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 “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare
For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

No.Nsk/CIT(A)-2/59/16-17 respectively, in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It emerges at the outset that learned counsel has filed on record this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s quantum common order dated 06.01.2020 in their appeals and 627/PUN/2018 restoring the corresponding issues back to the Assessing Officer for his fresh appropriate adjudication.

3.

Mr. Jasnani at this stage pointed out that both these appeals suffer from 635 days delay each which has not been properly explained. We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant technical arguments in light of the assessee’s condonation, averments/ affidavit dated 04.10.2022 quoting various communications’ gaps as well as outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic [at least from the end of year 2019 till the date of institution herein i.e. dated 28.07.2020]. Be that as it may, hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Collector Land Acquisition V/s. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) setting the law long back that such all technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the corresponding quantum issue(s) already stands restored back to the Assessing Officer (supra). We, thus, condone the impugned delay of 635 days each and set-aside both these penalties appeals back to the Assessing Officer for his fresh appropriate adjudication as per law in the light of his quantum findings. Ordered accordingly.

4.

These twin assessees as many appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 23rd November, 2022.

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 →