SHIVRATAN MOTILALJI RATHI HUF,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALNA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING]
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING] BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. /ITA No.1257/PUN/2023 �नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2009-10
Shivratan Motilalji Rathi HUF, Income Tax Officer, Ground Floor, Shree Krishna Kutir, Jalna Durga Mata Road, Opp. Mission Hospital, vs. Jalna – 431 203, Maharashtra PAN : AAEHR5318G (Appellant) (Respondent)
For Assessee : None For Revenue : Smt. Neha Deshpande
Date of Hearing : 14.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. :
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056672312(1), dated 29.09.2023, involving proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned NFAC lower appellate order has refused to condone 1943 days delay in filing of the assessee’s appeal. The
2 ITA.No.1257/PUN/2023 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi HUF
Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee’s condonation averments had
given justifiable reasons beyond its control that on account of differences
within the members of the concerned HUF, the case took so long time to be
filed in the lower appellate process. This is indeed coupled with the fact that a
part of the aforegoing period from 19-03-2020 to 28-02-2022 to the date of
actual filing therein, i.e., 21-07-2020, has also been included despite the fact
that hon’ble apex court directions in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation,
In Re 438 ITR 296 (SC) setting the issue at rest qua Covid-19 pandemic
outbreak period for all intents and purposes under the limitation law.
Be that as it may, their lordships yet another decision in Collector Land
Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has also settled the law
that all such technical aspects must make a way for the cause of substantial
justice. Faced with this situation, the impugned delay of 1943 days before the
learned NFAC stands condoned in very terms. The assessee’s substantive
grounds pleaded in the instant appeal are hereby restored to the NFAC for
fresh appropriate adjudication in accordance with law, preferably within three
effective opportunities of hearing subject to rider that it shall be the taxpayer’s
onus only to plead and prove all facts with the relevant evidence(s) in
consequential proceedings.
3 ITA.No.1257/PUN/2023 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi HUF
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th March, 2024.
Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated : 26th March, 2024 Satish
Copy to :
The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File.
/ /By Order // //True Copy //
Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.
