SRI PROJECTS,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), PUNE

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1757/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sri Projects, V The Income Tax Officer, 202, Saileela Apartments, s Ward-2(1), Pune. Ekdant Vihar, Aundh, Pune – 411007. PAN: ABPFS4558R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Abhilash Hiran – AR Revenue by Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 18/11/2024 Date of pronouncement 19/11/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] u/sec.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; dated 25.06.2024 for the A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “Grounds challenging the order passed by the learned CIT(A) without condoning the delay and without providing the opportunity of being heard 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of appeal filed without specifically directing to substantiate the reasons for delay in filing the appeal and hence erred in not providing the opportunity of being heard 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not passing the order by adjudicating the legal ground and merits of the case. Ground challenging the validity of the assessment order 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A) erred in extending the scope of limited scrutiny by making addition beyond the issues referred to in limited scrutiny notice, which is in violation of CBDT instruction no. 5 of 2016 dated 14/07/2016 and therefore the addition made deserves to be deleted. Ground challenging the merits of the case 4. On the facts and the circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) erred in making an addition on account of short-term capital gains of Rs 56,80,701 under section 50 of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case. 5. On the facts and the circumstances of the case the learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) erred in making an addition on account of depreciation of Rs 69,900 without appreciating the facts of the case. In view of the above grounds and in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant prays before your Honours to set aside the order under section 250 of the Act and grant the relief The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute, or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing of the appeal, to enable the Hon’ble Tribunal to decide this appeal according to law.” Findings &Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is observed that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the Assessee as under : “5.1 I have gone through the Assessment Order and submissions of the appellant. It is observed that the date of service of notice of 2 demand as declared by the appellant is 20/12/2018 and the appellant has filed appeal on 09/02/2019 which is beyond statutory time limit of 30 days. The appellant has mentioned that partner who was responsible for looking after income tax related matter was ill and thus it missed filing the appeal on time. 5.2 The appellant has not filed any medical report of said ill partner to substantiate its claim. Further, in presence of multiple partners, the simple reason (that too without any evidence of ill health) for not filing appeal on time is not found to be acceptable reason. 5.3 The reason provided by the appellant is not found to be justifiable reason for delayed filing of appeal. Since the appeal filing is time barred and in absence of any justified reason/ explanation the same is not maintainable ab initio. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5.4 2.1 It is observed that Assessee has filed appeal against the assessment order dated 20.12.2018 for A.Y.2016-17 passed u/sec.144 of the Act on 09.02.2019 before ld.CIT(A). Thus, there was a delay of 21 days in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Assessee explained in the condonation petition which was filed before the ld.CIT(A) that the partner of the assessee firm who was looking after tax issues was severely ill and therefore, could not file appeal within time. Before us, Assessee has filed an affidavit of Mr.Saiprasad Jonnalagadda, Partner of Sri Projects explaining the reason for delay. Assessee also filed Medical Certificate explaining his illness. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that there was a reasonable and sufficient cause

3 for delay. Hence, we direct the ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing appeal. Accordingly, the order of ld.CIT(A) is set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A).Thus, Ground No.1 filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. We do not comment on merits of the additions. Accordingly, Ground Nos.2 to 5 are dismissed unadjudicated.