Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeals for assessment years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 arose from the CIT(A)'s common order which rejected the penalty appeals for want of reasonable cause for delay. The appeals were instituted after considerable delay, and the assessee had not paid advance tax or other statutory liabilities.
Held
The Tribunal found merit in restoring the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized that technical aspects should give way to substantial justice.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the appeals for delay, and if not, whether the appeals should be restored for fresh adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
270A, 144, 249(4)(b)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.Nos.2061 & 2057/Mum./2024 Assessment Years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020 Shri Manisha Hemant More, 1st Floor, 203, Rvi Raj Apartment, The ACIT, Central Circle-3, Khadakpada Circle, Near vs. Ashar I T Park, THANE. Wayale Nagar, Kalyan Maharashtra. West, Thane – 421 301. PIN – 400 604. Maharashtra. PAN AHKPM8129P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M.
These assessee’s twin appeals ITA.Nos.2061 & 2057/ Mum./2024, for assessment years 2018-2019 & 2019-2020, arise against the learned CIT(A), Pune-11, Pune’s as many DIN & Order nos.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1061191555(1)
2 ITA.Nos.2061 & 2057/MUM./2024 and 1061191824(1), both dated 20.02.2024 in proceedings u/s.270A and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”); assessment year-wise; respectively.
Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
The learned DR vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the CIT(A), Pune-11, Pune has rightly rejected the assessee’s quantum penalty appeal for the former assessment year 2018-2019, instituted on 08.06.2022 against the order dated 16.03.2022 and quantum appeal for the latter assessment year 2019-2020 instituted on 15.06.2022 against the assessment order dated 10.02.2021; respectively for want of any reasonable cause explaining the delay therein. Mrs. Nayar sought to buttress the point that the assessee had also not paid the corresponding advance tax and other statutory liabilities as well which could entitle her to file both these appeals before the tribunal in light of sec.249(4)(b) of the Act.
3 ITA.Nos.2061 & 2057/MUM./2024 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions. We find no merit in Revenue’s arguments since the learned CIT(A)’s common order(s) under challenge is not only ex-parte but also refused to condone the corresponding delay(s) therein. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice. We thus treat it as a fit instance to restore these assessee’s twin appeals back to the CIT(A) for his afresh, appropriate adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee, subject to the rider that it is the sole risk and responsibility of the assessee to plead and prove her case with all relevant documents in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
These assessee’s twin appeals ITA.Nos. 2061 and 2057/MUM/2024 are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
4 ITA.Nos.2061 & 2057/MUM./2024 Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.07.2024