RAVINDRA BHAUSAHEB MADHAVAI,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 675/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication on merits, as the CIT(A) had not addressed the substantive issues raised by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 149-day delay in filing. The CIT(A) also failed to adjudicate the substantive grounds of appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the grounds of appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 250(6)

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 “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 10.05.2024Pronounced: 15.05.2024

Date of Hearing : 10.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 15.05.2024 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the CIT(A), Pune-11, Pune's Din and Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1059707782(1),dated 15.01.2024, in proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that the learned CIT(A)'s lower appellate detailed discussion under challenge has refused to condone 149 days delay in filing; qua ex-parte order passed against the taxpayer. Learned DR fails to dispute that the assessee’s Form-35 filed in the lower appellate proceedings had sufficiently explained the foregoing delay by way of 2 ITA.No.675/PUN./2024 reasonable cause as owing to circumstances beyond his control. That being the case, I condone the delay of 149 days in filing appeal before the lower appellate authority in light of 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.

Coupled with this, the Ld. CIT(A)'s has also not adjudicated the merits of the assessee’s various substantive grounds as contemplated u/sec.250(6) of the Act requiring it to give points for determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereof.

Faced with the situation, I deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A), for it’s afresh adjudication, preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing, subject to the rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s onus and responsibility only to file and prove all the relevant facts in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

3.

Delay of 19 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned as per assessee’s solemn averments in light of 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.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

3 ITA.No.675/PUN./2024 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 →