BALASAHEB GANPAT JARE,BEED V. ITO WARD 1(5), AURANGABAD

ITA 2325/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Balasaheb Ganpat Jare, who appealed against the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The appeals were initially dismissed due to a significant delay in filing (202 days), which the CIT(A) did not condone. The Tribunal noted that similar issues had been addressed in a previous case for the assessment year 2016-17, where the Tribunal had set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed a decision on merits after condoning the delay. Following this precedent, the Tribunal in the current case also set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 24600 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Vedabai alias Vaijayantabai Naburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patil, Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P. MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: SUHAS P. BORA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause; Co-operative Credit Society
• Section: 148; 142(1); 250; 69A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.2324 & 2325/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Balasaheb Ganpat Jare, 116, Sutar Galli, At- Matkuli, Tal- Ashti, Beed- 414203. PAN : ARSPJ9650Q Vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: Both the above captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 26.09.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in both the above captioned appeals of the assessee, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order. 3. First, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2324/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2014-15. Assessee by : Shri Suhas P. Bora Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 12.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 28.02.2025 ITA Nos.2324 & 2325/PUN/2024 2 ITA No.2324/PUN/2024, A.Y. 2014-15 : 4. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [\"CIT(A)\"] erred in passing the order under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\") without providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant. The order was passed solely on the basis that the appellant failed to furnish sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits. Instead, the CIT(A) adopted a hyper-technical approach, rejecting the appellant's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal on the ground that the reason given was too general. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in applying a mechanical and narrow interpretation of the judicial precedents, including Vedabai alias Vaijayantabai Naburao Patil vs Shantaram Baburao Patil (125 STC 375 SC) and Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (1987 SC 1353), cited by the appellant. The CIT(A) incorrectly held that these decisions, which dealt with delays of 7 and 4 days respectively, were not applicable to the present case involving a delay of 202 days. The CIT(A) failed to properly consider the true and correct facts of the appellant's case, as well as the appellant's justification under the proviso to Section 249 of the Act. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual stated to be engaged in the business of Sales and Purchase of Food grains oil seeds under the name & style “Jare Traders. The assessee has not filed his original return of income. Based on the information that the assessee has deposited huge cash amounting to Rs.61,10,717/- in the bank account maintained with Ahmednagar Merchant Co-operative Bank and M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., the case was reopened. Pursuant to notice u/s 148 of the Act, the assessee ITA Nos.2324 & 2325/PUN/2024 3 filed the return of income on 30.01.2023 declaring total income of Rs.4,45,000/-. Notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the assessee to which he filed the requisite details. Thereafter, a show cause notice issued to the assessee calling for certain other details. There was no compliance by the assessee. In the circumstances, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer on a total income of Rs.65,55,717/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.4,45,000/-. The assessed income includes unexplained cash deposits of Rs.61,10,717/- u/s 69A of the IT Act. 6. Aggrieved by the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a delay of 202 days. However, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without condoning the above delay of 202 days. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the assessee has filed three appeals before this Tribunal involving identical issues in all the three assessment years i.e. assessment years 2014-15-, 2015-16 and 2016-17, whereas the Tribunal in the succeeding assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2016-17 in assessee’s own case has set-aside the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to decide the appeal on merits after condoning the delay of 202 days. Therefore, it was prayed before the Bench to ITA Nos.2324 & 2325/PUN/2024 4 set-aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and it was further requested to direct Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the delay of 202 days and decide the appeal on merits. 8. Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue did not raised any serious objection to the request of the assessee. 9. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present appeal is covered by the decision of the Pune SMC Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No.2328/PUN/2024 order dated 23.12.2024 for assessment year 2016-17, wherein the Tribunal set-aside the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to decide the appeal on merits after condoning the delay of 202 days by observing as under :- “6. I have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. It is an admitted position that the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. It is the contention of the assessee before ld.CIT(A)/NFAC that the Consultant Mr. Swapnil Bhalgat who was looking after the Tax matters of the assessee failed to make any submissions before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC which resulted in passing of exparte order. In my considered view, the assessee should not suffer because of failure of Tax Consultant to represent before the authority. I am of the considered opinion that the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned. Here, I would like to quote the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, 389 ITR 250 (Bom.) wherein it was held that in the matter of condonation of delay an overall view in the larger interest of justice has to be taken. None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bonafides. I therefore condone the delay of 202 days in filing of the appeal before ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. However, since ld.CIT(A) /NFAC has not adjudicated the issue on merits, I therefore without dwelling into ITA Nos.2324 & 2325/PUN/2024 5 merits of the issue and considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the issues raised on merits are setaside to the file of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for necessary adjudication as provided u/s.250(6) of the Act, after affording reasonable opportunities to the assessee in accordance with law. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and make satisfactory compliance to the notice(s) of hearing issued by the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and should refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.” 10. Respectfully following the above decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case (supra), we set-aside the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & remand the matter back to him with a direction to condone the delay of 202 days and decide the appeal afresh as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and produce supporting documents/evidences & explanations, if any, in support of their claim, without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the present appeal are partly allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2324/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos.2324 & 2325/PUN/2024 6 ITA No.2325/PUN/2024, A.Y. 2015-16 : 12. Since the facts and issues involved in the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16 are identical to the facts of the case for assessment year 2014-15, therefore, our decision in ITA No.2324/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2014-15 shall apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2325/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2015-16. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2325/PUN/2024 for A.Y. 2015-16 is also allowed for statistical purposes. 13. To sum up, both the above captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 28th day of February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 28th February, 2025. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "