What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the assessee's explanation of sufficient cause. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal and decide the issue on merits.

The assessee received Rs. 5,08,200/- from the Municipal Council for land acquisition. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte due to non-compliance with notices and added this amount as income from other sources. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 11 months.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to sufficient cause, and whether the addition made by the AO should be decided on merits.

Santosh Dattatraya Bhosale… vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2018

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

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli

Hearing: 30.10.2018Pronounced: 28.11.2018

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur dated 20.09.2017 for the Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee as under :- “1. The learned CIT erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay of 11 months occurred for filing the appeal.

The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time.

The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.508200/- without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.

The appellant craves to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

Briefly stated relevant facts include that the assessee is an individual having income from salary and other sources. During the course assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the Municipal

Council, Chiplun acquired certain land and paid consideration to various

persons (including the assessee). The assessee was shown to have received

a sum of Rs.5,08,200/- from the Chiplun Municipal Council, Chiplun.

During the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer issued notice

u/s 142(1) dated 29.09.2005 to the assessee for filing of the income-tax

return. Considering the non-compliance to the said notice, the Assessing

Officer completed the assessment ex-parte on 31.12.2007 u/s 144 of the Act and assessed the said amount of Rs.5,08,200/- under the head

“Income from other sources”.

Aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with delay of 11 months. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee without going

into merits.

Aggrieved with the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before me

raising the aforementioned grounds.

From the above, it is evident that making addition of Rs.5,08,200/-

in the ex-parte assessment order dated 31.12.2007 in connection with the transaction of sale of land is the issue on merits. The Assessing Officer

assessed the total income at Rs.5,44,679/-. The assessee did not file

return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act for the impugned assessment year.

There is completely non-attendance to the notice issued by the Assessing

Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made ex-parte assessment u/s 144

of the Act. However, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with the delay of 11 months, the assessee furnished an affidavit explaining the said delay, requested for condonation of delay and also requested for deciding

the issue on merits. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay. The CIT(A)

extracted the contents of the affidavit in his order. The contents of the affidavit briefly includes that the assessee is a Government Employee

working with MSRTC as Bus Conductor. The assessee sold a piece of land

for a consideration of Rs.5,08,200/- and invested the said amount in constructing of residential house. When the notices were sent by the Assessing Officer, the assessee handed-over the same to his counsel, who

merely did not give serious attention to the problem on hand. The assessee

narrated the entire conversions with Mr. Nayan Bhojane (tax consultant of the assessee). Eventually, the assessee changed the another tax consultant

and filed the appeal before the CIT(A). However, the said contents of the affidavit was ignored by the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee

in limine.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal is filed in time before the Tribunal and it reflects the seriousness of the assessee in matter relating to the appellate proceedings. The ld. Counsel read out the entire contents of the affidavit and submitted that the assessee in the income-tax proceedings has trusted the local tax consultant Mr. Nayan

Bhojane and his assistant Mr. Bhatkar. Assessing Officer did not bring out

any contrary evidence against the assessee on the said facts. These facts

are not found bogus either by the CIT(A) or by the Assessing Officer.

Therefore, in my view, this is a fit case for condonation of delay. No assessee shall forgo the right of appeal conferred by the Statute without

reasonable cause. The contents of the affidavit should constitute

reasonable cause. Therefore, I accordingly condone the delay.

Therefore, I direct the CIT(A) to condone the delay considering the principles of natural justice. I am of the opinion that the CIT(A) should admit the appeal and adjudicate the issue on merit in accordance with law and the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act. The assessee is hereby directed to attend the proceedings before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to call for remand report if he required before adjudicating the issue on merits.

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

Order pronounced on this 28th day of November, 2018. (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) लेखासद"य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER लेखासद"य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; "दनांकDated : 28th November, 2018. Sujeet आदेशक"""त"ल"पअ"े"षत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant;

""यथ"/ The Respondent;

2.3.

The CIT(A)-2, Kolhapur;

The Chief CIT, Pune; "वभागीय""त"न"ध, आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, पुणे“एक-सद"यमामला” /

DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड"फाईल/ Guard file. 6. //// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,स

स"या"पत ""त//// Senior Private Secretary आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण ,पुणे/ ITAT, Pune

SANTOSH DATTATRAYA BHOSALE,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD – 3, RATNAGIRI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments