SANIL SETHU MADHAVAN,PUNE vs. CIT A, PUNE

ORDER Per G. D. Padmahshali, AM; This appeal is filed u/s 253(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act [‘the Act’] by the assessee challenging the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] DIN & Order ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054731019(1) dt. 31/07/2023 passed u/s 250 of the Act.

Sanil Madhavan Vs CPC, Bengaluru AY:2018-19 2.2 Since the demand in this case was arisen owning to restricting the TDS credit to ₹22,000/- as against the claim of the assessee made in his ITR, the assessee assailed the denial of full credit of TDS in an appeal before first appellate authority on 30/03/2020 that is with a delay of 398 days. In absence of affidavit explaining reasons beyond aforestated delay and a petition seeking condonation of such delay, the Ld. NFAC came to dismiss the appeal in limine by relying on the catena of decisions.

2.3 Aggrieved assessee brought up this appeal challenging the action of tax authorities on violation of principle of natural justice and on merits.

Sanil Madhavan Vs CPC, Bengaluru AY:2018-19 entertain the appeal on a technical ground of assessee’s failure to file petition for condonation.

4.1 We our view, the appellate remedy or forum is created by the statute is to rest the dispute and not to accelerate for higher forum, therefore having regard to present facts and circumstances, placing reliance on recent judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in ‘Raheem Shah & ANR Vs Govind Singh & Ors’ [CIVIL APPEAL NO.4628 OF 2023], we are heedful to state that, while dealing with tax litigation, the Ld. NFAC being a quasi-judicial authority was expected to adopt justice oriented approach rather resorting to iron-cast technical one wherein the Ld. NFAC came to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine on a hyper-technical ground without putting the assessee to notice.

4.2 Further in our considered view, non-filing of petition for condonation and affidavit explaining the reasons beyond delay caused in instituting the appeal before the first appellate authority is technical but curable defect and in all the fairness the assessee deserves an opportunity to cure and contest its case on merits. In view of this, without offering any comments on the merits of the case, we deem it fit to set-aside the impugned order and remit the file of Ld. NFAC with a direction deal therewith de-nova in accordance with applicable law and pass a speaking order in terms of section 250(6) of the Act.

ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4

Sanil Madhavan Vs CPC, Bengaluru AY:2018-19 4.3 Needless to state the Ld. NFAC shall accord not more than three opportunities to the assessee to represent his case by filing a petition for condonation & explain the reasons thereof to the satisfaction of the first appellate authority and also such evidential material in support of claim of TDS made in the return of income as required under the application laws. We also direct the appellant assessee to co-operate with the Ld. NFAC in speedy disposal of the appeal without seeking unreasoned adjournment.

-S/d- -S/d- PARTHA SARATHI CHOUDHURY G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE ; ददनाांक / Dated : 23rd day of February, 2024. आदेश की प्रनिनलनप अग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent.

3. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi (India) 4. The Concerned CIT (MH-India) 5. DR, ITAT, Bench ‘SMC’, Pune 6. गार्डफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / By Order, वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्यायादधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 4