MANGALBAI RAJKUMAR MAREWAR,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD-3, LATUR, LATUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 272/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 May 2024AY 2012-13Bench: 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 NFAC and the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The case was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the NFAC was dismissed due to a significant delay that remained unexplained. The NFAC's order also failed to adjudicate the substantive grounds of appeal on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC was sufficiently explained and whether the NFAC properly adjudicated the substantive grounds of appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 19.03.2024Pronounced: 02.05.2024

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/ 1058281692(1), dated 28.11.2023, involving proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the Ld. CIT(A)'s has dismissed the assessee’s lower appeal on the ground that delay of two years five months stood unexplained before him. I do not find any discussion in the impugned lower appellate order regarding opportunities afforded to the assessee for condoning the same. This is coupled with the hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167

1.

2 ITA.No.272/PUN./2024 ITR 471 (SC) having settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial justice. I, therefore, condone the impugned delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC as well as 17 days delay in filing the appeal before the tribunal.

3.

Further, Mr. Mehta could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the NFAC’s order has nowhere decided the assessee’s substantive grounds on merits 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 condone the impugned delay in filing the lower appeal and restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the NFAC 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.

4.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →