INDRANI M. BHATTIPROLU,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2901/PUN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 March 2018AY 2009-104 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 147 days, finding that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 147 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to a lack of proper legal advice and difficulty in finding expert help.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condonable due to reasonable cause, and if the appeal should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi
For Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggrawal
Hearing: 21.03.2018Pronounced: 26.03.2018

आदेश / ORDER

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:

The appeal filed by assessee is against order of CIT(A)-1, Nashik, dated 21.09.2016 relating to assessment year 2009-10 against order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

ITA No.2901/PUN/2016 2 Smt. Indrani M. Bhattiprolu

On facts and in law, 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in not admitting the appeal on merits of the case on the ground that the delay in filing the appeal of 147 days was not condonable. 2] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the delay of 147 days in filing the appeal was on account of reasonable cause on the part of the appellant and hence, the delay should have been condoned in the interest of justice. 3] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee did not receive proper legal advice and even in the course of the asst. proceedings, he was not guided by a Chartered Accountant and hence, there was a delay in filing the appeal and thus, the delay should have been condoned in the interest of justice. 4] The assessee prays before Hon’ble ITAT that the issue may be restored to the fie of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the issue on merits of the case.

3.

The assessee is aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) in not admitting the appeal on the ground that the appeal was filed after delay of 147 days.

4.

The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee before us pointed out that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from non appearance before the CIT(A). However, the condonation application moved by the assessee was not accepted by the CIT(A) and appeal was dismissed in limine. He has also referred to the affidavit of assessee in this regard.

5.

The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue placed reliance on the orders of authorities below.

6.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The first issue which is raised by the assessee in the present appeal is against dismissal of appeal by the CIT(A) on the ground that there was delay of 147 days in filing the appeal, which was not condonable. The husband of assessee, who is looking after the business of assessee has filed an affidavit stating as under:-

ITA No.2901/PUN/2016 3 Smt. Indrani M. Bhattiprolu

“Affidavit I, Mahesh Swami Bhattiprolu, Age - 63 years, son of Late Shri B. Muthuswami, residing at Nashik Road, Nashik solemnly affirm as hereunder My wife, Smt. Indrani Mahesh Bhattiprolu, aged 54 years is engaged in the business of manufacture of industrial material handling equipment. I was employed as a Maintenance In-charge with Crompton Greaves Ltd., Nashik for around 18 years. After taking retirement therefrom, I started actively looking after the business of my wife. I wish to state that the income tax assessment proceedings were taken up for the first time in the case of my wife for Assessment Year 2009-10 and the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was passed on 16.01.2015. I wish to state that on receipt of the assessment order on 21.01 2015 I had immediately forwarded the same to my tax auditor, Mr. Dilip Palde. I hereby state that he had assured me that he shall take care of the appropriate action to be taken in order to challenge the tax demand raised vide the said order. I wish to state that I am a person from technical background and I did not have any prior experience regarding income tax procedures and proceedings. However, thereafter, in the month of July, 2015, I received another notice regarding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2009-10. At that time, I tried to contact Mr Palde however, he refused to entertain my case on the pretext that he was busy with audits. Having left with no expert legal help, I myself visited the Office of Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Nashik and sought advice from him with respect to the required action to be taken. I wish to state that at that time, the Officer Mr. Dhanraj Borade, advised me to approach, CA Milind H. Joshi from Nashik for further legal advice. I hereby state that on getting the said advice, I promptly contacted Mr. Milind Joshi and the appeal was filed immediately on 17.07.2015.”

7.

After going through the said affidavit, we find that the assessee was prevented from sufficient cause in not filing the appeal in time before the CIT(A). Accordingly, we condone the same. However, we restore the appeal back to the file of CIT(A) to decide the issue on merits, in accordance with law after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, allowed.

8.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed as indicated above.

Order pronounced on this 26th day of March, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 26th March, 2018. GCVSR

ITA No.2901/PUN/2016 4 Smt. Indrani M. Bhattiprolu

आदेश की प्रयिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant; 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-1, Nashik; 3. 4. The Pr.CIT-1, Nashik; ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे, एक-सदस्य 5. मामऱा / DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. 6. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →