ANANDRAO TUKARAM KHOBARE,PUNE V. ITO, WARD 4(3), PUNE

ITA 2228/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Anandrao Tukaram Khobare, the appellant, who contested the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, which dismissed his appeal due to a delay of 303 days in filing. The original assessment by the Assessing Officer added Rs.5 lakh to the appellant's income, suspecting unaccounted cash transactions in property purchases. The appellant argued that the delay was due to the negligence of his Chartered Accountant and the pandemic's impact, which the CIT(A) did not find satisfactory. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the Supreme Court's precedent, decided to restore the case to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after condoning the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24672 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMBARNATH BHIMRAO KHULE
• Assessee Lawyers: S N PURANIK
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2228/PUN/2024 Assessment year : 2014-15 Anandrao Tukaram Khobare Flat No.204, Saivirat S P Builder, Sun City Road, Anandnagar, Pune – 411051 Vs. ITO, Ward 4(3), Pune PAN: AFBPK9948P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri S N Puranik Department by : Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule (through virtual) Date of hearing : 04-03-2025 Date of pronouncement : 05-03-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.08.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2014-15. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee on account of delay and thereby confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 2 ITA No.2228/PUN/2024 3. Facts of the case in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income on 26.08.2014 declaring total income of Rs.3,47,580/-. Since the information was received from the department database that the assessee has purchased the immovable property at Shivsagar Platinum, Flat No.F2-301, Anandnagar, Suncity Road, Pune – 51 from Sable Associates and paid Rs.5 lakh in cash, the case was reopened after taking the approval from the Pr.CCIT, Pune. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued and served on the assessee. Thereafter, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with the questionnaire was also issued to explain the source of investment and furnish evidences in support thereof. Since the assessee did not file any reply to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act. He accordingly made the addition of Rs.5 lakh to the returned income of Rs.4,47,579/-. 4. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a delay of 303 days. It was submitted that when the Assessing Officer issued notices, the pandemic was at its peak for which the assessee could not furnish any supporting details before the Assessing Officer. So far as the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is concerned, it was submitted that since the assessee is not well conversant with the intricacies of tax law, all the notices have been forwarded to the consultant who did not file the appeal in time. Relying on various decisions, it was requested to condone the delay. 3 ITA No.2228/PUN/2024 5. However, the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC was not satisfied with the reasons for such delay in filing of the appeal. Distinguishing the various decisions cited before him and relying on various other decisions, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal on account of delay in filing of the same. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the affidavit filed before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC as well as the affidavit of the concerned Chartered Accountant filed before the Tribunal submitted that the delay was due to the negligence of the concerned Chartered Accountant and the delay is not attributable to the assessee. He submitted that the assessee has forwarded all the papers to the concerned Chartered Accountant who failed in his duty to file the appeal. He submitted that although the assessee is vigilant but since he is not well conversant with the intricacies of tax law, it missed his attention. Relying on various decisions, he submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal should have been condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. He accordingly submitted that the appeal may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and decide the issue on merit. 8. Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissing the appeal on account of delay in filing of the same. 4 ITA No.2228/PUN/2024 9. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that the appeal was filed with a delay of 303 days before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC for which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the same on account of delay in filing of the appeal. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the delay in filing of the appeal was due to the negligence of the concerned Chartered Accountant. It is also his submission that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details. 10. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 11. Respectfully following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited (supra) and considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we 5 ITA No.2228/PUN/2024 deem it proper to restore the issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the appeal on merit as per fact and law after giving one opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to participate in the appeal proceedings and submit the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 5th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 5th March, 2025 GCVSR 6 ITA No.2228/PUN/2024 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 04.03.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 05.03.2025 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order "