Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sujatabai Shesherao Vs. ITO, Ward-4, Latur. Bansode, Bhim Nagar ATP & TQ Ahmedpur, Latur- 413515. PAN : APLPB6172Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue by : Shri Umesh Phade Date of hearing : 01.08.2024 Date of pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश / ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.03.2024 passed by Ld CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2013-14.
The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1] On the facts and in the circumstances The Learned CIT(A) NFAC erred in law and on facts in not condoning the delay in filing appeal on the ground that the reasons for delay are not found to be satisfactory. 2] The learned CIT(A) has and on facts in not appreciating that the reasons for delay were beyond the control of the appellant and were genuine for which the delay ought to have be condoned and appeal ought to have decided on merits.
3] On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law and while considering the legal issues the assessee was entitled to exemption that is of interest received on compulsory acquisition of agricultural land u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act. The legal issues has been decided by various judicial authorities. lt be held accordingly. 4] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant is entitled to exemption u/s 10(37) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as now it is a settled law and the Jurisdictional Pune ITAT in the case of Sanjay Bhimrao Patil v Income Tax Officer ward -3 Latur vide dated on 08.02.2023 has decided in favour of the Appellant Assessee. It be allowed to this appellant as all terms and conditions are satisfied in this case. 5] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC was not justified in brading the Return filed u/s139(4) filed on15.01.2014.The Return filed u/s 139(4) is also treated as return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act and on or before due date. The claim exemption made u/s 10(37) be allowed to the appellant assessee. 6] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the entire interest received u/s 28 on the account of compulsory acquisition of agri. land is not only exempt u/s 10(37) but also exempt u/s 96 of the RECTLLAR Act,2013 following the CBDT Circular No. 36 dt. 25.10.2016. The exemption be granted accordingly. 7] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B,and 234C is not justified. 8] The Appellant craves to leave, add, amend, alter, delete any of the above grounds of Appeal
.”
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an agriculturist residing in remote village area, namely, Bhim Nagar, Ahemedpur. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act and the assessment order was passed ex-parte u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer brought to tax the interest amount received on enhanced compensation of agricultural land. The assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC belatedly and the same was dismissed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without condoning the delay. It is this first appeal order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
We have heard learned counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without going into the merits of the case and without accepting the contentions of the assessee regarding condonation of delay, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under :- “2. The assessee’s explanation for condonding the delay in filing the appeal is found to be not satisfactory. The delay in filing the appeal is not condoned. Further, the assessment was also completed ex-parte u/s 144 r.w.s.
The addition of interest on compensation or enhanced compensation amounting to Rs.5,13,013/- is fully confirmed u/s 56(2)(viii).”
From perusal of the above order, we find that the appeal was dismissed on the basis of delay alone but at the same time, ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has mentioned that the assessment order was also passed ex-parte u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act and, therefore, the addition of interest on enhanced compensation amounting to Rs.5,12,013/- is fully confirmed u/s 56(2)(viii) of the IT Act. The ld. CIT(A)/NFAC could not blow hot and cold at the same time because when the appeal was dismissed on the basis of delay it means the order is not passed on merits. As per section 250(6) of IT Act, it was compulsory to pass an order on merits after considering all the grounds raised by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, but in this case, ld. CIT(A)/NFAC failed to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee in the present appeal. We therefore find force in the arguments of the assessee that the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is not correct and the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay and then decide the appeal/issue on merits. We further find that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not mentioned that whether any opportunity was given to the assessee to explain the reason of delay or not and it has also not been mentioned in the appellate/impugned order that how much was the delay in filing of the appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. We find that the assessee is an agriculturist lady residing in remote village area and not supposed to have any technical knowledge of appeal filing etc. It was also submitted by the assessee that the digital signature could not be obtained which resulted delay in filing of the present appeal. Considering the totality of the facts without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits of the case by adjudicating each grounds of appeal