SANJAY GANPAT AHER,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M.

These assessee’s three appeals I.T.A.Nos.1630, 1631

& 1632/PUN./2024, for assessment years 2016-2017, 2017-

2018 and 2018-2019, arise against the as many orders of the

learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the

“NFAC”] Delhi, Delhi’s Din and Order Nos.ITBA/ NFAC/S/

250/2024-25/1066242113(1); 1066242055(1) and

1066242164(1); all dated 29.06.2024, in proceedings u/s.147

r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”);

assessment year-wise, respectively.

2 ITA.No.1630, 1631 & 1632/PUN./2024

Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

appeals I.T.A.Nos.1630, 1631 & 1632/PUN./2024, for

assessment years 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019,

suggests that the learned CIT(A)-NFAC has refused to condone

the delay of 238 days each as not supported by justifiable

reasons beyond his control. He has further taken note of

hon’ble apex court’s decision in Pathapati Subba Reddy (died)

by LRs. vs. Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) Special Leave

Petition (Civil) No.31218 of 2018 dated 08.04.2024.

learned Assessing Officer had framed all the three impugned

assessments on the same day i.e., 21.08.2021 u/sec.144 of

the Act invoking “best judgment” on account of non-

cooperation coming from the taxpayer’s side. The assessee has

admittedly filed all the three instant lower appeals before the

CIT(A)-NFAC on 21.01.2023 is suffered from 238 days delay

each. He attributed the reasons thereof to various technical

glitches that the Assessing Officer’s notice(s) as well as the

corresponding demand(s) had been received in “spam”. It is

this clinching reason which stands rejected in the identical

lower appellate discussion by the CIT(A)-NFAC that the same

does not form a justifiable reason.

3 ITA.No.1630, 1631 & 1632/PUN./2024

assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s vehement contentions in

support of the respective stands. We observe that the

necessary inference which flows from the above narrated facts

is that the assessee could not put in appearance before the

Assessing Officer along with all the relevant details because of

Covid-2019 pandemic outbreak and the period thereof already

stands excluded up-to 28.02.2022 by the hon’ble apex court in

Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC)

read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation,

In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314 for

all intents and purposes under the limitation law. That being

the case, in light of the fact that assessee has already filed his

explanation attributing the impugned further delay of 234

days each because of some glitches in the e-mail folder, we

conclude that his remedy of pursuing various grievances could

not be allowed to be jeopardized. We thus deem it as a fit case

to condone the impugned delay of 238 days each in filing of

the lower appeal before the CIT(A)-NFAC and restore the

matter back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh

adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of

hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s

onus and responsibility only to plead and prove all the

relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered

accordingly.

4 ITA.No.1630, 1631 & 1632/PUN./2024

1630, 1631 & 1632/PUN./2024 are allowed for statistical

purposes in above terms. A copy of this common order be

placed in the respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.09.2024.

Sd/- Sd/- [INTURI RAMA RAO] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Pune, Dated 27th September, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //By Order//

//True Copy //

Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.