RAJEEV BAL SAWANGIKAR, NAGPUR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-4, NAGPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING]
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.16/NAG./2023 Assessment Year 2015-16 Rajeev Bal Sawangikar, Plot No. 475, Professors The Deputy Commissioner of Colony, Hanuman Nagar, Income Tax, Circle – 4, Nagpur vs. Nagpur-440009 Maharashtra PAN : AEYPS3670Q (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing : 22.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 25.04.2024 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
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.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.04.2024.
Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated : 25th April, 2024 Ravi/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Nagpur concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Nagpur. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.
