MOHAMMED NASIR MOHAMMED YUSUF PATEL,MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 902/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 March 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the 607-day delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, considering the exclusion period for COVID-19 and the principle of substantial justice. The ITAT directed the NFAC to take up the appeal for fresh adjudication on its merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the NFAC with a delay of 607 days. The NFAC had refused to condone this delay. The assessee's appeal was filed against an assessment order dated 08.12.2019, and the appeal before the NFAC was filed on 18.09.2021.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC should be condoned, and whether the appeal should be adjudicated on its merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(4)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 [VIRTUAL HEARING]

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 06.03.2024Pronounced: 06.03.2024

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.902/PUN./2023 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2012-2013 Shri Mohammed Nasir The Income Tax Officer, Mohammed Yusuf Patel, Ward-5, Plot No.2-2A, H.No.153, Taloja, Panvel. vs. Sector-17, Aaykar Bhawan, District-Raigad. PIN 410208 Trifred Tower, Khanda Colony, Maharashtra. Panvel, District Raigad. PAN BTQPP8705F Maharashtra. PIN 410 206 (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Date of Hearing : 06.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 06.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : 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/250/2022- 23/1050134647(1), dated 26.02.2023, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

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

2.

Learned DR vehemently argued during the course of hearing that the NFAC herein has rightly refused to condone 607 days delay in filing of the assessee’s appeal filed on 18.09.2021 against the Assessing Officer’s assessment order dated 08.12.2019.

2 ITA.No.902/PUN./2023 His case is that the assessee had not pleaded and proved any reasonable cause indicating circumstances beyond his control in the corresponding condonation averments placed before the NFAC. He could hardly rebut the clinching fact that the learned NFAC has included Covid-2019 pandemic outbreak period between 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, the date of the filing of the lower appeal i.e., 18.09.2021 which has already been ordered to be excluded as per hon’ble apex court’s directions in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 438 ITR 296 (SC) read with judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re 432 ITR 206 (SC) dated 08-03-2021 and 421 ITR 314, for all intents and purposes under limitation law. Faced with the situation, the foregoing delay of 607 days in filing of the lower appeal at the assessee’s behest before NFAC is condoned. The assessee’s first appeal before the NFAC is directed to be taken afresh for appropriate adjudication on all the issues raised before it as per sec.250(6) of the Act, 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 110 days herein 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.

3 ITA.No.902/PUN./2023 Order pronounced in the open Court on 06.03.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →