BADRI PRASAD PATEL,VIDISHA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(4), BHOPAL

ITA 456/IND/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Badri Prasad Patel, an agriculturist, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) which had dismissed his first appeal due to a delay of nearly 5 months. The delay was attributed to the death of his counsel and the subsequent time taken to obtain a PAN card, as the assessee was initially without one. The ITAT found merit in the assessee's explanation for the delay and decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination on both procedural and merit grounds.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34578 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIASHISHPORWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIHITESHCHIMNANI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 3 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.456/Ind/2024 Assessment Year:2009-10 Badri Prasad Patel House No.6, Ward No.12 Badaganj Gairat Gani Vidisha बनाम/ Vs. ITO 3(4) Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: DHCPP2313F Assessee by Shri Hitesh Chimnani, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 28.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.02.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 21.03.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Addl/JCIT(A)-3, Kolkata [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 23.09.2016 passed by learned ITO-3(4), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2009-10, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36). Badri Prasad Patel ITA No. 456/Ind/2024 - AY 2009-10 Page 2 of 3 2. Heard the learned Representatives of both sides and case records perused. 3. It emerged during hearing that the CIT(A) has dismissed first-appeal of assessee for the reason that there was a delay of nearly 5 months. Ld. AR for assessee submitted that the assessee is a villager; the assessee was not having PAN; the AO issued notice u/s 148 to undertake assessment u/s 147; the assessee handed over notice to his consultant but compliances could not be made due to death of counsel; that the assessee was under a good impression that the consultant was appearing in his case; subsequently after receipt of ex-parte assessment-order from AO, the assessee applied for PAN which took time and thereafter the first-appeal could be filed. Hence, there occurred a delay of 5 months. Ld. AR submitted that these facts were submitted to CIT(A) with a request for condonation of delay but the CIT(A) rejected assessee’s submission for want of documentary evidences. However, the assessee is still ready to make a vehement submission to satisfy the CIT(A). Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and only source of income is agriculture. 4. Considering the fact that the delay in first-appeal needs to be condoned by CIT(A) and the assessee is willing to make a better explanation to satisfy the CIT(A) in the matter and thereafter on merit of case, we proposed to restore this matter at the level of CIT(A). Both sides agreed to proposal. Therefore, we are remanding this matter to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) shall give another opportunity to assessee to Badri Prasad Patel ITA No. 456/Ind/2024 - AY 2009-10 Page 3 of 3 make submissions and pass order afresh after considering such submissions judiciously without being influenced by his previous order in any manner. The assessee is directed to ensure proper representation before CIT(A) on the dates of hearing without seeking unnecessary adjournments. Ordered accordingly. 5. Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court / by putting on notice board as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 03/02/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (UDAYAN DAS GUPTA) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 03/02/2025 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore "