BHAUSAHEB BALASAHEB MHASKE ,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD

We note that, the assessee is an individual in whose case the information that the assessee sold an immovable property situated at Gut No. 697 Plot No. 45 for a consideration of ₹19.50Lakhs as against the stamp duty value of ₹26.88Lakhs was received pursuant by the Ld. AO to which the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act. In the event of non-compliance and effective failure of the assessee to showcase the income risen in the form (a) capital gain on transfer of aforestated property (b) salary income and (c) difference in valuation of property sold etc., was offered to tax in the return of income (if any) filed by him was added to total income to the best of his judgement and framed an ex-parte assessment on 21/03/2023 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Aggrieved assessee instituted delayed appeal before the Ld. NFAC which was dismissed in limine as barred by limitation.

Without touching the merits of the case we have heard the rival parties on the limited issue of ex-parte assessment and dismissal of appeal in limine by the Ld. NFAC and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 perused material placed on record, considered the facts in the light of settled legal position. We noted that against the ex-parte order of assessment passed on 21/03/2023 an appeal ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4 was filed before the Ld. NFAC on 23/08/2023 admittedly with a delay 125 days accompanying therewith a petition for condonation of delay stating therein that (a) assessee as well authorised representative were unable to access the copies of assessment order from online it-web-portal (b) the consistent online technical glitches prevented the assessee from obtaining copies in due time and further (c) no physical/hard copies of the orders were received by the assessee from the Revenue. However these reasons did fail to form ‘sufficient cause’ in view of the Ld. NFAC therefore it rejected to entertain the appeal on a technical ground of assessee’s failure to prove the reasonable/sufficient cause beyond the said delay.

We have considered the reasoning in the light of corroborative documents, letters & submission etc., and find them falling within the parameters set for condonation by various judicial precedents including ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC). Such reasons since being accidental and undeliberate on the part of appellant are in our considered view very much capable of forming ‘sufficient cause or reasons’ behind the delay caused in instituting the appeal before Ld. NFAC. ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4

After placing reliance on the judicial precedent (supra) in the larger interest of judice we condone the 125 days delay occurred in instituting the appeal u/s 246(1) of the Act for the reasons that ‘none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal.’

In view of the aforestated observations, without offering any comments on merits of the case, we set-aside impugned order and remit the file back to the Ld. NFAC with a direction to treat the appeal filed u/s 246A(1) by the assessee within the time limit specified u/s 249(2) of the Act and then deal therewith on merits in accordance with applicable law after providing three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee.

In result the appeal is PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Wednesday, 11th day of September, 2024