SUDHIR RAJARAM SONAWANE,SATANA vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 379/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 April 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The NFAC's order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the NFAC with a delay of 226 days. The NFAC dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of this delay, without adjudicating the substantive issues.

What were the issues?

Whether the NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits. Whether substantial justice requires condoning the delay and restoring the appeal for adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3),Section 250(6),Section 147,Section 263

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: 22.03.2024Pronounced: 29.04.2024

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1058953968(1), dated 21.12.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

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

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the NFAC has noted that assessee has failed to provide any sufficient cause or cogent reason as per sec.249(3) of the Act thereby dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of 226 days delay in filing the appeal. 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

1.

2 ITA.No.379/PUN./2024 requiring it to give points for determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereof. Faced with this situation, I deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to 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.

3.

Delay of 226 days in filing the lower appeal before the NFAC is condoned 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.

More judgments on Section 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →