MR RAMSOCH DASHRATH YADAV,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(4), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1048/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 September 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that the CIT(A)-NFAC should have considered the period of the COVID-19 pandemic exclusion for limitation. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)-NFAC was dismissed due to a delay of 859 days. The CIT(A)-NFAC's order did not adjudicate the substantive grounds of appeal on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)-NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the exclusion of the COVID-19 period and without adjudicating the substantive grounds of appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 438 ITR 296
    438 ITR 296 · 2021 · SC
    196 citing
  • 432 ITR 206
    432 ITR 206 · 2020 · SC
    182 citing
  • 421 ITR 314
    421 ITR 314 · SC
    172 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 03.09.2024Pronounced: 05.09.2024

short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2023-24/1063104351(1), dated 21.03.2024, in proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A)-NFAC has noted that there was a delay of 859

2 ITA.No.1048/PUN./2024 days in filing the appeal before it and therefore, the CIT(A)- NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the said ground alone. Shri Arvind Desai could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the Assessing Officer had framed his impugned assessment on 17.12.2019 and the assessee preferred his first appeal on 24.05.2022. Meaning thereby, that the learned CIT(A)-NFAC has included Covid-2019 pandemic outbreak period from between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, which period duly excluded by their lordships’ 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. And also that the CIT(A)-NFAC’s order has nowhere decided the assessee’s substantive grounds on merits as contemplated u/sec.250(6) of the Act requiring it to give points for determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereof.

Faced with the situation, we deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)-NFAC; after condoning the above delay, for it’s 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 file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

3 ITA.No.1048/PUN./2024

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 05.09.2024.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →