VITTHAL MARUTI NIMASE,SANGAMNER vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-4, AHMEDNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 48/PUN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 August 2022AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and present fresh evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal beyond the prescribed time limit due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) without issuing a statutory notice under section 143(2). The assessee was absent before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order was validly passed without issuing a notice under section 143(2) and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case before the appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 438 ITR 296
    438 ITR 296 · 2021 · SC
    196 citing
  • 432 ITR 206
    432 ITR 206 · 2020 · SC
    182 citing
  • 421 ITR 314
    421 ITR 314 · SC
    172 citing

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

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Shah
For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

आदेश / ORDER

PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 13-03-2020 in relation to the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The appeal is time barred by 166 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit stating that the delay in filing the instant appeal was caused due to Covid pandemic situation prevailing in the country at the material time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314 has taken a suo motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenges faced by the country on account of COVID-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that could be faced by the litigants across the country and accordingly extended the time limit for filing of the appeals. I, therefore, condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the same for disposal on merits.

3.

I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the assessment in this case was completed u/s.143(3) determining total income at Rs.21,67,053/-. The ld. AR submitted that the assessment order in this case was passed without issuing a statutory notice u/s.143(2) of the Act. However, it is also a fact that the assessee remained absent before the ld. CIT(A) and as such the factual examination of this issue could not be carried out. In view of the above factual background prevailing in the extant case and further the request made by the ld. AR for granting an opportunity to the assessee to present his case before the ld. first appellate authority, I am of the opinion that it would be just and fair if the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass the order afresh as per law after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee will be at liberty to lead any fresh evidence in support of his point of view. I order accordingly.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05th August, 2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →