Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
आदेश / ORDER
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 22.02.2024 for the assessment year 2006-07.
Briefly, the facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s.132A of the Act was conducted in Tupe Group on 13.02.2009 wherein the assessee was covered. During the course of search, certain incriminating material in the form of note books, diaries and loose papers were seized which revealed land transactions of the Tupe family and distribution of money among the family members. Consequent to search, the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2006-07 was reopened and the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act determining total income at Rs.5,81,056/-. While doing so, the AO brought to tax an amount of Rs.1,50,569/- on account of sale of land to City Corporation.
Thereafter, the matter travelled to the ITAT. The Tribunal vide order dated 19.09.2018 had restored the issue back to the file of AO for framing the assessment afresh. Pursuant to the directions, the AO vide impugned order dated 09.12.2019 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.254 of the Act had again reiterated the addition of Rs.1,50,569/- on account of sale of land to City Corporation by rejecting the contention of the appellant that addition was made without any corroborative material based on loose papers.
Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC with a delay of 407 days. The CIT(A)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay by stating that neither the appellant had filed any condonation petition nor any reasons were mentioned in Form No.35. He, therefore, placing reliance on various decisions held that merely because substantial justice is to be done law of limitation cannot be ignored and that also when there is no sufficient and reasonable cause for such inordinate delay.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.
I heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Admittedly, in the present case, the appellant filed appeal before the Addl/JCIT(A) on 19.01.2021. The Addl/JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay by stating that neither the appellant had filed any condonation petition nor any sufficient and reasonable cause was mentioned in Form No.35. In my considered opinion, the Addl/JCIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay as the period from the date of passing the order by the AO, i.e. 09.12.2019 till 19.01.2021 is covered by the pandemic Covid-19 prevailed all over the country. Therefore, the said delay cannot be reckoned for the purpose of computation the limitation period by virtue of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme 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. I, therefore direct the Addl./JCIT(A) to condone the delay and dispose of the appeal on merits.
In the light of above, in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the file of Addl/JCIT(A) for adjudication of the issue afresh on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 14th day of August, 2024.