VISHAL SAHEBRAO MAHAJAN,THANE vs. ITO WARD-10(3), PUNE, PUNE

Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vishal Sahebrao Mahajan, Vs. ITO, Ward-10(3), Pune. A301, Atlanta Enclave, Near Kalyan Phata/Shil Phata on Mumbai Panvel Road, Thane- 400612. PAN : ANIPM4947M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vishal Sahebrao Mahajan Revenue by Shri B. S. Rajpurohit : Date of hearing : 01.10.2024 Date of pronouncement : 26.11.2024 आदेश / ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)' erred in not admitting the condonation application for delay in filing the appeal u/s 249(3) without appreciating the facts that appeal was submitted within the prescribed time limit of 30 days from the date of receipt/service of order to him i.e. on 10.02.2021 even though time is lapsed from the date or order i.e. 29.12.2018 which was not serviced to the assesse for 773 days from the date of passing the order and same was collected from the A.O physically on 10.02.2021 and appeal was filed on 22.02.2021. The sufficient reasons and circumstances were ignored without applying the pragmatic and liberal approach.

and statement of facts appreciating the reasons beyond control of the appellant as order copy was not serviced timely for filing the appeal and order u/s 250 passed without considering the merits of the case.

3. The Appellant prays your honor to consider the condonation application within your power u/s 253(5) appreciating the genuineness of reason and circumstances leading for undue delay in filing the appeal from the date of order as appeal is filed within the prescribed time limits from the date of service of notice. I pray your honor to admit the appeal and allow me to contest the Appeal on merits and pray that justice should not be shunned away on technical grounds and that liberal view should be taken while considering the condonation application for delay in filing and admitting the appeal.

4. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and / or withdrawal any or all the above grounds of Appeal.”

3. Facts of the case, in brief are that the assessee is an individual and salaried employee. He did not file ITR for the period under consideration. The case was selected for scrutiny by initiating proceedings u/s 148 of the IT Act on the basis of information received from DDIT(Inv.), Unit-7(4), Mumbai. Notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued. Notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and the assessee furnished his return of income declaring income of Rs.1,57,130/- only. During the course of assessment proceedings, notice u/s 133(6) was issued to NSE, BSE and NSDL but there was no response from the said agencies. The assessee also submitted reply that he has checked with his broker Share Khan and there was no trading done by his for shares of M/s. Swarnsarita Gems Ltd. for financial year 2010-11. But, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee has done transaction amounting to Rs.17,00,171/- and accordingly the assessment was completed on a total income at Rs.18,57,300/- against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.1,57,130/-.

4. Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur dismissed the first appeal filed by the assessee since the appeal was filed belatedly i.e. with a delay of two years. Accordingly, Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur without going into the merits of the case dismissed the appeal of the assessee by not condoning the delay. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

5. When the appeal was called for hearing, the assessee himself i.e. Vishal Sahebrao Mahajan appeared in person and submitted before the Bench that he is a salaried employee and has not done any transaction as alleged by the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted by him that the assessment order was not received by him and he was under impression that he has already furnished replies and submissions before the Assessing Officer and he must have accepted the same. But in the year 2021, he received intimation regarding outstanding demand against his name. He personally met JAO and requested for copy of the assessment order and then only he was supplied the copy of the assessment order. Immediately after receiving the copy of the assessment order, he consulted a counsel who advised him to file first appeal against the assessment order. Under the above facts the delay was caused. It was further contended that there was no mala-fide intention in furnishing the first appeal belatedly and it was beyond his control as the order was not received by him. All the proceedings were conducted in physical mode and at that point of time the orders were served through physical mode only. It was therefore Bench to set-aside the order passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur with direction to condone the delay and provide one more opportunity to support the grounds of appeal raised by him.

6. Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue relied on the order passed by subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same.

7. We have heard the assessee in person and Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. It is the case of the assessee that he is salaried employee and did not enter into any so called transaction alleged by the Assessing Officer and also furnished his return of income in compliance to notice u/s 148, cooperated in the proceedings of assessment and furnished his replies. As he was not well aware with the proceedings of the Income Tax Department, he thought that after his replies the Assessing Officer will accept them but unfortunately the Assessing Officer did not accepted his contentions and made the additions resulting in huge demand even the assessment order was not received by him. But in the month of February, 2021 when intimation of outstanding demand reached to him he contacted the JAO and then only the copy of the assessment order was supplied to him and then only he was advised to file first appeal against the assessment order. The contentions made by the assessee before us appears to be genuine and bona-fide. Apart from the above, we also find that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC) dated 10.01.2022, wherein, the limitation prescribed by various statutes was suo motu extended on account of difficulties faced by the citizens of the country on account of Covid Pandemic. Accordingly, respectfully following the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), we deem it fit to condone the delay in filing the appeal before Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur. We therefore set-aside the order passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur & remand the matter back to the file of Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur with direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on merits as per fact & law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Jaipur and produce supporting documents/evidences in support of