What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits after granting an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed as time-barred due to a delay of 700 days. The assessee cited non-service of the assessment order and loss of files by their representative as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

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

Manoj Sahadevrao Jadhav vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2018

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

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Ganoo

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT

आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 92/PUN/2018 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2011-12

Manoj Sahadevrao Jadhav, ITO, Ward-3(1), Flat No.602, Vs. Pune Ishan Shrusti, Warje, Pune – 411 052 PAN : AEOPJ8160N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Shri Sunil Ganoo Respondent by Shri Rajesh Gawli Date of hearing 15-11-2018 Date of pronouncement 15-11-2018 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP :

This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order passed by the CIT(A)-3, Pune, on 23-11-2017 in relation to the A.Y. 2011-12.

Filtering out needless details for the purposes of disposal of this appeal, it is seen that the assessment was completed at a total income of Rs.13,80,230/- as against the declared total income of Rs.10,63,840/-. The assessee assailed the

2 ITA No.92/PUN/2018 Manoj S. Jadhav

additions/disallowances before the ld. CIT(A) by means of an

appeal which was filed belatedly by 700 days. Certain reasons

were advanced before the ld. CIT(A) in support of the

condonation of delay, which did not find favourable with the

ld. first appellate authority. He, therefore, dismissed the

appeal of the assessee by declaring it as time barred, without

going into its merits. The assessee is aggrieved by such a

dismissal.

I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant

material on record. Admittedly, the appeal was filed belatedly

by 700 days before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted the

reasons for such delay, being, non-service of assessment order

u/s.143(3) on him as his Authorised Representative lost the

files pertaining to the assessee and also did not inform about

the proceedings that had taken place during the scrutiny. The

assessee further explained that he came to know of the

assessment order only when he received notice of demand in

December 2015. The assessee approached the Assessing

Officer for copy of the assessment order and also other

scrutiny records so as to enable him to file an appeal before

the first appellate authority. It was only then that a copy of the

3 ITA No.92/PUN/2018 Manoj S. Jadhav

assessment order was received and the appeal was filed by the

assessee before the ld. CIT(A) which got time barred by then.

It is observed that the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y.

2009-10 was also time barred before the ld. CIT(A) under

similar circumstances with a delay of 1472 days which came

to be dismissed on preliminary ground on non-condonation of

delay. The assessee approached the Tribunal against such

order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Vide its order dated

13-06-2018, the Tribunal in ITA No.443/PUN/2017 has

condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)

and remitted the matter to the first appellate authority for

passing the order on merits after granting an opportunity of

hearing.

As the facts and circumstances of the instant appeal are mutatis mutandis similar to those for the A.Y. 2009-10,

respectfully following the precedent, I set-aside the impugned

order, condone the delay and remit the matter to the file of ld.

CIT(A) for disposing of the appeal on merits after allowing

reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4 ITA No.92/PUN/2018 Manoj S. Jadhav

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

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th November, 2018.

Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा�य� उपा�य�/ VICE PRESIDENT उपा�य� उपा�य�

पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 15th November, 2018 सतीश आदेश क� क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT (Appeals)-3, Pune 4. आयकर आयु� / The Pr. CIT-2, Pune 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “SMC” / DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. // True copy / आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

ITA No.92/PUN/2018 Manoj S. Jadhav

Date 1. Draft dictated on 15-11-18 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 15.11.18 3. Draft proposed & placed before the - second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second - Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order.

MANOJ SAHADEVRAO JADHAV,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1), PUNE

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