ARJUN BHAIRU BHANGIRE,PUNE V. ITO WARD 14, PUNE

ITA 1444/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves three appeals filed by Abhimanyu Arjun Bhangire and Arjun B. Bhangire against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeals were initially dismissed ex parte by the CIT(A) due to non-prosecution. The assessees, being agriculturists and unfamiliar with the income-tax e-portal, were unaware of the notices and the subsequent orders. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the legal precedents, decided to condone the delay in filing the appeals and remand the cases for a fresh examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 41404 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr, Concord of India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi, Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P. MURKUNDE
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1442 and 1443/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Abhimanyu Arjun Bhangire, Near Peer Temple, Mohamad Wadi, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028 Maharashtra PaN : AIGPB4021L Vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), Pune Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1444/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Arjun Bhairu Bhangire, 117,Mohamad Wadi, Hadapsar, Pune 411 028 Maharashtra PaN : BXBPB9884J Vs. ITO, Ward-14(1), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned three appeals pertaining to different but connected assesses relate to Assessment Year 2017-18 and they are directed against the separate orders passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Assessee(s) by : Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P.Murkunde Date of hearing : 18.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 04.03.2025 ITA Nos.1442 to 1444/PUN/2024 Abhimanyu Arjun Bhangire and Arjun B. Bhangire 2 Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) which inturn are arising out of the respective Assessment orders. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the instant appeals filed by the assessees’ are time barred by limitation by 30 days, 277 days and 38 days respectively before the Tribunal. He submitted that the assessees are Agriculturists and not acquainted with income- tax e-portal. Notices of hearing were sent on email id of the Tax Consultant who has neither informed about the notices nor filed any submissions against those notices which led to passing of the exparte orders. The assessees were therefore unaware of the notices as well as passing of the orders as having accessed them belatedly. Therefore, there was ‘reasonable cause’ for not presenting the appeals within the stipulated time. The delay occurred in the instant appeals are due to circumstances beyond control of the assessees. Therefore, in the interest of justice, it is prayed that the delay in filing the appeals be condoned. On merits of the case, ld. Counsel submitted that since ld.CIT(A) has passed the exparte orders dismissing the appeals for non-prosecution, without going into merits of the issues, an opportunity may be granted to the assessees for making proper representation before the ld.CIT(A). It is therefore prayed for remanding the issues on merit to the file of CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. 3. After hearing both the sides, we find that the affidavits explaining the delay by the concerned assessees remained to be filed. Therefore, the Bench advised to file the affidavits within ten days. Accordingly, the assessees have filed the ITA Nos.1442 to 1444/PUN/2024 Abhimanyu Arjun Bhangire and Arjun B. Bhangire 3 affidavits. We have gone through the averments made by the assessees in the respective affidavits. 4. There is no dispute that under section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The point is as to whether such a delay deserves condonation. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. In that case, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court condoned the delay. 5. Adverting to the facts of the instant appeals, we find that the legal issue of passing the exparte orders dismissing the appeals at the threshold stage has merit in favour of the assessees, which requires readjudication at the end of the ld. CIT(A). Under these circumstances and on going through the averments made by the assessees in the affidavits and nothing contrary disbelieve those averments, we condone the delay occurred in the instant cases in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. 6. Coming to merits, we find that the impugned orders in respect of the instant appeals filed by the respective ITA Nos.1442 to 1444/PUN/2024 Abhimanyu Arjun Bhangire and Arjun B. Bhangire 4 assessees were passed exparte by the ld.CIT(A) and dismissed the appeals in limine, without discussing anything on merits of the issues. It is the submission of Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessees could not effectively pursue the case before the ld.CIT(A) due to the reasons mentioned above. Therefore, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee by remanding the cases to the file of ld.CIT(A). Further, the settled position of law mandates that the ld.CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issues raised in appeal on merits as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act giving reasons thereof. In this regard, reference is being made to a decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A) NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and the submissions made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and there being no objection from the side of ld. Departmental Representative, we in the interest of justice deem it proper to give an opportunity to the assessees. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the issue, the issues on merits in the instant appeals are being remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Assessees’ are at liberty to adduce any evidence as they deem expedient and ld.CIT(A) shall consider all the submissions of the assessees and pass the orders in conformity with the provisions envisaged u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessees are also directed to provide proper email id to the department for receiving the hearing notices from the ITBA portal. Assessees ITA Nos.1442 to 1444/PUN/2024 Abhimanyu Arjun Bhangire and Arjun B. Bhangire 5 are further directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of the ld.CIT(A) are set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessees’ are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 04th day of March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 04th March, 2025. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ\tेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\f / The Appellant. 2. \r\u000eयथ\f / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय \rितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "