DHANESH NAMDEO SAGALE,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 2(1),, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 470/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 April 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay as the assessee provided a plausible explanation and the exact date of service of the assessment order was not established. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC with a delay of 140 days. The CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. The assessee claimed the assessment order was only served via WhatsApp and due to work pressure, the appeal was not filed on time.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC should be condoned, and if so, whether the appeal should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi
For Respondent: Shri Somnath M. Wajale
Hearing: 25.04.2024Pronounced: 25.04.2024

आदेश / ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 07.02.2024 for the assessment year 2016-17.

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income under the head ‘Salary’. Return of income for the A.Y. 2016-17 was filed on 16.06.2016 disclosing total income of Rs.11,18,160/-. There was no scrutiny assessment. Subsequently, on receipt of information from ACIT, Central Circle-2, Nashik that the appellant had purchased immovable property during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 2016-17 and paid on-money consideration of Rs.10,26,002/-, reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s.148 on 30.03.2021. The appellant had not complied with either with the notice u/s.148 or u/s.142(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the assessment came to be completed u/s.144 of the Act making addition of Rs.10,26,002/- by holding that the appellant had failed to explain the source for payment of on-money consideration at the time of purchase of immovable property.

3.

Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A)/NFAC with a delay of 140 days. The CIT(A)/NFAC without condoning the delay had dismissed the appeal in limine.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal.

5.

It is submitted before me that the CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay having regard to the explanation filed for condonation of delay. It is submitted that the assessment order was only served on whatsapp. Copy of the assessment order was neither served through e-mail nor physically. Since the appellant was employed with Axis bank, due to the work load, he missed the attention to file the appeal in time. It is, therefore, prayed that the matter be remanded to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC for which the ld. DR has no serious objection.

6.

Heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

The appellant had explained the reasons for the delay in not filing the appeal before the CIT(A) within the prescribed time limit. The CIT(A)/NFAC had not doubted the genuineness of the explanation nor the CIT(A) could bring on record the exact date of service of assessment order upon the appellant. In the said circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal and adjudicate the issue on merits. In the best interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the issues denovo in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on this 25th day of April, 2024.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →