GIRISH YEGAPPA TANGADI,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), SANGLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 460/PUN/2020Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 August 2022AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 520-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 520-day delay. The delay was attributed to communication issues between the taxpayer and consultants. The CIT(A) confirmed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) without deciding on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and if so, whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250(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, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM & SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM

For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Hearing: 21.06.2022Pronounced: 29.08.2022

आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM :

1.

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 is directed against the CIT(A)-1, Kolhapur’s order dated 22/01/2020 passed in case No. SLI/262/2015-16 involving proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act”.

Shri Girish Y Tangadi.,

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

It emerges during course of hearing that the CIT(A)’s impugned lower appellate order has refused to condone 520 days delay in filing of the lower appeal which was stated to be attributable to lack of communication between the taxpayer and tax consultants at various levels. Learned CIT(A) appears to have confirmed section 271(1)(c) penalty in issue of Rs.1,77,530 in other words without deciding correctness thereof on merits.

3.

Faced with this situation, we quote hon’ble apex court’s land mark decision in the Collector Land Acquisition V/s. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) that of these technical aspect must make way for the cause of substantial justice and observe that the assessee was prevented from instituting lower appeal on account of circumstances beyond his control. We accordingly condone the impugned delay of 520 days in filing his lower appeal as neither intentional nor deliberate and direct the learned CIT(A) to adjudicate the same on merits within three effective opportunities of hearing as contemplated section 250(C) of the Act. Ordered accordingly.

Delay of 106 days in filing of the instant appeal instituted on 06.07.2020 stands condoned since falling in Covid-19 pandemic outbreak period.

Shri Girish Y Tangadi.,

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 29th day of August, 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 →