RAJEEV BAL SAWANGIKAR, NAGPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-4, NAGPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea for condonation of delay, citing the principle of substantial justice over technical objections. The appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2015-16 was dismissed by the NFAC for delay. The assessee sought condonation of a significant delay and credit for TDS amounting to Rs. 1,51,686.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the TDS credit should be allowed on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji3,926 citing167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING]
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1047478526(1), dated 17.11.2022, involving proceedings u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :
“1. The order passed by Hon'ble CIT(A) is illegal invalid and bad in law. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in holding the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. The appellant prays that the delay be condoned and appeal should be taken up for hearing.
2 ITA.No.16/NAG/2023
2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal of the appellant. That on facts and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits and not allowing the credit of Tax deducted at source.
3. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and notwithstanding each other. Any consequential relief, to which the appellant may be entitled under the law in pursuance of the aforesaid grounds of appeal, or otherwise, may thus be granted. The appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the above grounds of appeal and the factual and legal arguments against the addition by the Ld. CIT(A)/Ld. AO at the time or before the course of appellate proceedings in the interest of natural justice.”
Suffice to say, Mr. Marathe could hardly dispute that the assessee’s sole substantive grievance in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the lower authorities action denying the TDS credit to tune of Rs.1,51,686/- which prima-facie requires factual verification at the lower authorities end than a detailed adjudication in the instant second appellate proceedings.
Mr. Marathe vehemently submitted that the CIT(A) herein has refused to condone the 835 days delay in filing the appeal. I do not find any merit in Revenue’s instant technical objection in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice.
Faced with the situation, I deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the NFAC for it’s afresh adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be 3 ITA.No.16/NAG/2023 the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.04.2024.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Shivaraj M S vs. The Union Of INDIAKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
