PRAKASH MADHAV KOLHE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1) , NASHIK

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: These two appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act for A.Y.2017-18 and A.Y.2018-19 both dated 27.02.2024 emanating from penalty orders under section 270A of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for A.Y.2017-18 are as under :

3. The learned CIT ought to have appreciated that the bona fides of the explanation offered by assesse were established from the fact that the assesse, being salaried employee from technical background, was totally dependent upon the tax consultant for filing income tax return and no such incorrect claim was ever made by the assesse either in past years or in subsequent years and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270Awas not justified in view of the explanation offered by the assesse.”

Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is observed that ld.CIT(A) for A.Y.2017-18 dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that there has been delay of 404 days in filing appeal. Similarly, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the & 687/PUN/2024 Prakash Madhav Kolhe [A] assessee on the ground that there has been delay of 403 days in filing appeal. According to ld.CIT(A), there was no sufficient reason for delay in filing appeal. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) dismissed both the appeals of the assessee without discussing the merits of the case.

2.1 The ld.AR submitted that assessee is a salaried employee, does not have any knowledge of Income Tax and its Proceedings. It was submitted that assessee had not received the copies of the orders and notices as assessee is not well-versed with the systems. Ld.AR further submitted that during that period the Assessee was ill and was advised rest by his doctor. Ld.AR submitted copy of the certificate issued by the doctor. Ld.AR also submitted that during that period there were many glitches on the Income Tax website. Therefore, the Ld.AR pleaded that delay may kindly be condoned.

3.1 From 15.03.2020 there was Lockdown i.e. Covid-19 in the entire country. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has suo- moto taken cognizance in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation in Suo-motu W.P. (C) No. 3 of 2020 and extended the limitation dates from 15.03.2020 to 01.03.2022. Therefore, this period needs to be excluded while calculating delay in filing of appeal. The substantial justice is more important, especially in the cases of penalty. When the issue of Technical and substantial Justice are pitted against each other, the course of substantial justice would prevail. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. We are convinced that there was sufficient reason for delay in filing appeal. Therefore, in the larger interest of justice, we direct the ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay in both these appeals and decide the issue on merits. Accordingly, order of ld.CIT(A) is set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The ld.CIT(A) shall provide & 687/PUN/2024 Prakash Madhav Kolhe [A] an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th August, 2024.