Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A” PUNE (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI
These appeals by the assessee are directed against a common order dated 10.10.2023 passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Pune-1 [in short ‘the PCIT’] for assessment years 2017- 18 to 2022-23.
The grounds raised in all these appeals being identical, for brevity, the grounds raised for assessment year 2017-18 are reproduced as under:
Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni 2 to 1357/PUN/2023
PCIT erred in rejecting the application of the appellant to condone delay in filing of return u/s 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without providing any opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Without prejudice to Ground 1 2. Ld. PCIT erred in not Condoning the delay in filing of revised return u/s 119 (2)(b) of the Act for assessment year 2017-18 without considering that the conditions mentioned in para 6 of CBDT Circular No. 09/2015 dated 09/06/2015 are satisfied in the case of the appellant. 3. Ld. PCIT erred in not considering the documents and evidences submitted by the appellant in support of the fact that his invalidation from the Naval services was due to bodily disability attributable or aggravated by such service. 4. Ld. PCIT erred in not considering the hypertension as bodily disability attributable or aggravated by such service. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that prior to relevant years, the assessee was a Member of Defense Forces and discharged from the service in the rank of Commander. He was granted pension however subsequently, the assessee claimed to have been allowed exemption from the taxability of pension by the relevant authorities due to disability elements. But till the time assessee received such certificate, the period for revising the returns of income for AY 2017-18 to AY 2022-23 expired. Hence, the assessee requested for condonation of delay in filing the revised return of income for assessment years 2017-18 to 2022-23 under the provisions of section 119(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Ld. PCIT vide impugned order rejected such request for condoning the delay in filing revised returns on the ground of no evidences submitted by the assessee in support of claim of disability element.
Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni 3 to 1357/PUN/2023 Aggrieved, the assessee filed above appeals before the Tribunal by way of raising grounds as reproduced above.
We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, we find that this order has been passed by the Ld. PCIT in terms of section 119(2)(b) of the Act. The orders, against which appeals could be preferred before the ITAT, have been specified in section 253 of the Act. For ready reference, the said section is reproduced as under:
“253. (1) Any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order— (a) an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) before the 1st day of October, 1998 or, as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals) under section 154, section 250, section 270A, section 271, section 271A 67[, section 271J] or section 272A; or (b) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January, 1997; or (ba) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 115VZC; or (c) an order passed by a Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under section 12AA or under clause (vi) of sub-section (5) of section 80G or under section 263 or under section 270A or under section 271 or under section 272A or an order passed by him under section 154 amending his order under section 263 or an order passed by a Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or a Principal Director General or Director General or a Principal Director or Director under section 272A; or (d) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section (3), of section 143 or section 147 or section 153A or section 153C in pursuance of the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel or an order passed under section 154 in respect of such order;
Anand Bhalchandra Kulkarni 4 to 1357/PUN/2023
(e) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 147 or section 153A or section 153C with the approval of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner as referred to in sub-section (12) of section 144BA or an order passed under section 154 or section 155 in respect of such order; (f) an order passed by the prescribed authority under sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) or sub-clause (vi) or sub-clause (via) of clause (23C) of section 10. (2) The Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, if he objects to any order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) before the 1st day of October, 1998 or, as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals) under section 154 or section 250, direct the Assessing Officer to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against the order.” ……………………………………………………………………….” 5.1 From the above, it is evident that appeal against the order u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act does not lie to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and therefore, appeal against the order u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act filed by the assessee cannot be admitted. The appeals filed being beyond the jurisdiction of ITAT, same are liable to be rejected as not maintainable before the ITAT, however, the assessee is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy under the law, as advised.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are rejected as unadmitted being non-maintainable.
Order pronounced in the open Court.