BALKRISHNA BABAN KAMTHE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14 (4), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1813/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 March 2022AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment and made an addition of Rs. 10.90 lakh on account of capital gains from land sale. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as time-barred.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and the appeal decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-1, Pune on 19-09-2019 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. I have heard the ld. DR and gone through the relevant material on record. There is no appearance from the sides of the assessee. As such, I am proceeding to dispose off the appeal ex parte qua the assessee. 3. It is seen that the AO re-opened the assessment u/s.148 by means of a notice on the ground that the assessee received Rs.73.00 lakh on sale of land to DSK Group for the project “Dream City” and did not disclose the correct amount of capital gain. After considering the assessee’s submissions, the Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment by making an addition of Rs.10.90 lakh. The ld. CIT(A) passed the order ex parte dismissing the appeal of the assessee as time barred by 96 days. The first ground of the appeal before the Tribunal states that the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the valid reasons for the belated filing of the appeal before him. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to condone the delay in presenting the appeal before the ld. CIT(A).

1.

Since the ld. CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merits, I am of the considered opinion that it would be in the fitness of things if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the issues on merits afresh as per law. I order accordingly. Needless to say, the assessee will be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 29th March, 2022.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →