MS DIAMOND ENTERPRISES,PARBHANI vs. ITO HINGOLI, PARBHANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 670/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 727 days in filing the lower appeal. The matter was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an assessment order with a delay of 727 days. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) refused to condone this delay. The delay period fell within the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned considering the COVID-19 pandemic period. Whether the NFAC erred in refusing to condone the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 438 ITR 296
    438 ITR 296 · 2021 · SC
    196 citing
  • 432 ITR 206
    432 ITR 206 · 2020 · SC
    182 citing
  • 421 ITR 314
    421 ITR 314 · SC
    172 citing

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 10.05.2024Pronounced: 14.05.2024

Date of Hearing : 10.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 14.05.2024 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/ 2023-24/1060705510(1), dated 09.02.2024, in proceedings u/s.144 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 NFAC herein has refused to condone the delay of 727 days in filing of the lower appeal instituted on 22.01.2022, against the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 despite the fact that the entire foregoing period i.e., from date of assessment coming on 27.12.2019 to that of the institution dated 22.01.2022 falls within the Covid-2019 pandemic outbreak period; has already

2 ITA.No.670/PUN./2024 been held to be excluded for all intents and purposes as per hon’ble apex court’s directions 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, under the limitation law.

3.

This being the clinching factual position emanating from the case file, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to condone the impugned 727 days in filing of the lower appeal and restore the matter back to the file of 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.

4.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →