HANMANT RAJENDRA SHINDE,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 221/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2024AY 2015-16Bench: 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 appeals, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji. The appeals were restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against NFAC orders with significant delays of 234 and 232 days. The NFAC refused to condone these delays, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC was justified in refusing to condone the substantial delay in filing the appeals. The primary issue revolved around the interpretation of "sufficient cause" for delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 14.05.2024Pronounced: 15.05.2024

Din and Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/ 1058500524(1) & 1058500794(1), both dated 06.12.2023, in proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

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

2.

It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side and from perusal of the learned

2 ITA.Nos.221 & 222/PUN./2024 NFAC’s detailed discussion that the latter has refused to condone 234 days and 232 days delay, case-wise, respectively, thereby concluding that the taxpayer herein has failed to explain any reasonable cause indicating unavoidable circumstances beyond his control. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee had preferred it’s twin lower appeals on 17.12.2022 against the National Faceless Assessments dated 25th and 27th March, 2022, respectively. We make it clear that this is also not the Revenue case that the assessee’s corresponding condonation averments had not indicated any sufficient cause at all. It is in this factual backdrop that we hardly see any justification in learned NFAC’s impugned lower appellate discussion in both these appeals refusing to condone the above stated delay(s) attributable to various detailed reasonings submitted therein.

3.

Learned DR could also not dispute that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in 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 deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant twin appeals back to the learned NFAC for it’s afresh appropriate adjudication preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing subject to the rider that it is 3 ITA.Nos.221 & 222/PUN./2024 the assessee’s sole risk and responsibility to prove the case in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

4.

Delay of 03 days in filing the instant twin appeals of the assessee are condoned in light of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) (supra).

5.

These assessee’s twin appeals I.T.A.Nos.221 & 222/ PUN./2024 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.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →