ARJUNSINGH CHHAGANSINGH VYAS,PUNE vs. I.T.O. WARD 8(3), PUNE, PUNE

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :

These assessee’s three appeals; all for the

assessment year 2017-2018, arises against National Faceless

Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s as many Din and

Order Nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056753518(1);

1056753518(1) and 1056753281(1); all dated 04.10.2023, in

proceedings u/secs. 271AAC1, 154, and 147 r.w.s.144 of the

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"); appeal-wise,

respectively.

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

2 ITA.Nos.1280, 1281 & 1282/PUN./2023

learned NFAC’s identical detailed discussion forming subject

matter of adjudication herein has refused to condone 155, 160

and 356 days delay; case-wise; respectively; thereby holding

that the assessee could not explain any reasonable cause in

support of it’s condonation averments submitted therein.

to the assessee’s identical condonation averments reading as

under :

“2. I am engaged in the business activities of Tours and

travels under the name and style of M/s. Royal Tours and

Travels.

the AY 2017-18 declaring total Income of Rs.10,27,230/-

income on e-filing portal and has also not sent the signed

copy to CPC, Bangalore within prescribed time. Hence, the

said return is invalid return as per the provision of Act.

11,15,000/- under the scheme as undisclosed income from

earlier years. I have paid first installment of Rs.

1,25,438/- and remaining payment of Rs. 3,76,312/- was

not paid due to misunderstanding with Tax Consultant.

3 ITA.Nos.1280, 1281 & 1282/PUN./2023

Thereafter the IDS 2016 application became invalid due to

nonpayment of Taxes.

grievance of invalidation of IDS-2016 form filed in said

scheme. Therefore I was under bonafide believed that I am

unable to proceeds on that.

above facts as mentioned as under :

The case was reopened after recording reasons of

reopening proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and taking

necessary approval as per the provision of Act. The

department is in possession of the information that the

assessee has declaration under IDS-2016 before PCIT-3,

Pune and defaulted in making payment of tax within

specified period which resulted the declaration as invalid.

can give me chance to pay balance amount so I filed reply

during the assessment proceedings on 02/05/2022 which

is reproduced as under.

I am not aware of Income Tax procedures and while

doing IDS-2016, I have paid all the amounts to my

previous consultant who has not paid any amounts.

Being a family member we could not lodge complaint

against him. Being honest tax payer I am ready to

4 ITA.Nos.1280, 1281 & 1282/PUN./2023

pay the balance tax as per the provisions of section

184 and 185 for which I need 2 or 3 installments, if

possible.

addition of Rs.11,15,000/- and I was under bonafide

believe that now nothing can positive happens with me.

Kumar in Mumbai for personal work and then I discussed

the matter with him and he told me there still chance of

getting relief appeal. So I filed appeal before Hon’ble CIT(A)

and filed details submission.

Date of Assessment Order 09/03/2022

Date of Appeal:- 28/02/2023

Delay in filled appeal of assessment :- 356 Days

Date of Penalty order 26/09/2022

Date of Appeal:-28/02/2023

Delay in filled appeal of Penalty Order:-155 Days

Date of Order u/s 154 21/09/2022

Date of Appeal28/02/2023

Delay in filled appeal of Rectification Order:-160 Days.

and dismissed the appeal without condoning delay.”

5 ITA.Nos.1280, 1281 & 1282/PUN./2023

disputing the assessee’s foregoing identical condonation

averments. His only case is that the same prima facie indicate

assessee’s ignorance of law which could not be taken as a

reasonable cause for the purpose of accepting the same.

assessee’s and Revenue’s vehement arguments regarding the

instant identical sole question of condonation of the foregoing

delay(s) in filing of his three alleged appeals involving quantum

rectification and penalty proceedings in above terms. We find

that the assessee’s condonation averments had duly explained

the corresponding unavoidable circumstances preventing him

from having filed the corresponding lower appeals beyond the

prescribed period of limitation. Learned counsel quoted case

law Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR

471 (SC) having settled the law long back that all such

technical aspects must make a way for the cause of

substantial justice. Faced with this situation, we find force in

the assessee’s foregoing identical submissions in all these

three appeals and hold that his condonation averments

sufficiently explained the impugned delay as involved

reasonable cause beyond his control. This is indeed coupled

with the fact that the lower appellate authority has nowhere

adjudicated the merits in any of these three appeals. We

accordingly deem it as a fit instance to condone the impugned

6 ITA.Nos.1280, 1281 & 1282/PUN./2023

delay(s) in filing of these three appeals involving varying

number of days (supra) and restore the assessee’s instant

substantive grounds back to learned NFAC for it’s afresh

appropriate adjudication preferably within three effective

opportunities of hearing subject to the rider that it is the

assessee’s sole risk and responsibility to prove the case in

consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

& 1282/PUN./2023 are allowed for statistical purposes in

above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the

respective case files.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 15.05.2024.

Sd/- Sd/- [INTURI RAMA RAO] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 15th May, 2024 VBP/- Copy to

//By Order//

//True Copy //

Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.