DNYANESHWAR BAPURAO CHUNADE,BHADRAWATI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, CHANDRAPUR

ITA 624/NAG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Dnyaneshwar Bapurao Chunade, the appellant, who contested the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, which dismissed his appeal due to a delay of 202 days in filing the first appeal against the assessment order. The assessment order had made an addition of \\u20b9 2,53,46,788 to the appellant's income. The appellant argued that the delay was unintentional and provided reasons including lack of knowledge of modern communication systems and reliance on his tax consultant. The Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner had not provided an opportunity of being heard before dismissing the appeal for want of limitation and thus remanded the case for a fresh decision on the condonation of delay application and subsequently on merits if the delay is condoned.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669031 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Vijay Vishin Meghani in ITA No. 493 of 2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURJIT KUMAR SAHA; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: K.P. DEWANI; LD
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Right to appeal
• Section: 147; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.No. 624/NAG/2024 (Assessment Year 2018-19) Dnyaneshwar Bapurao Chunade, Camp Road, Bhadrawati, Sakharwahi B.O.Dist Chandrapur. PAN : AFWPC 1061 J vs. ITO, Ward-1, Chandrapur. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri K.P. Dewani, Ld. AR For Revenue : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld. Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 23.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 23.06.2025 ORDER PER NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM: This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 23/10/2024 impugned herein passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [in short, “Ld.Commissioner”] u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) for the Assessment Year (for short, “AY”) 2018-19. 2 ITA.No. 624/NAG/2024 2. Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the assessee challenged the assessment order, dated 27/03/2023 u/sec. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act whereby the addition of ` 2,53,46,788/– has been made by the Assessing Officer, mainly for want of limitation and/or delay of 202 days in filing the first appeal before him and not giving any explanation with regard to such delay. The assessee in Form No.35 specified the reasons for condonation of delay, which reads as under:– “A. That the Assessee is a Individual, is in service with Bhadrawati Taluka Nagari Sahkari Pat Sanstha Society, duly registered under Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act having principal place of business at Bhadrawati Dist. Chandrapur. B. That the employer of Assessee doing the business of banking since inception. C. That on Assessee a notice u/s. 142(1) vide No. ITBA/AST/F/ 142(1)/ 2022-23/1043516616(1) was served from Local Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Chandrapur. On the receipt of notice, the Assessee was engaged a tax consultant. Thereafter the Assessee and his tax consultant meet to Local Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Chandrapur and state the facts of case. On advice the assessee registered his PAN on portal & filed reply online as advice by The Income Tax Officer, as advice according new procedure of assessment with the help of tax consultant. D That the Assessees mail ID was created at the time of registering the PAN on portal & the Assessee having no knowledge of modern system of communication and also not know how to access the mail etc. E. After filing the reply tax consultant assure that your case is closed and says not to worry. And also no physical communication is received to the Assessee from department after filing the reply, hence the Assessee assume that the proceeding was closed/ dropped looking to the facts. F. In the last week of October 2023, a call received from office of Local Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Chandrapur with respect to payment of demand on the Assessee which is generated due to assessment, penalty proceedings. Thereafter the Assessee rush to the Income Tax Departement at Chandrapur G. That the Assessee thereafter contacts to Shri Praveen Raut, Chartered Accountants and ask to him to file the appeal. 3 ITA.No. 624/NAG/2024 H. That assessee is places reliance on the decision of Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani in ITA No. 493 of 2015 vide order dated 19/09/2017 wherein delay of 2984 days in filling appeal has been condoned by Honble Jurisdictional High Court. The ratio laid down by the aforesaid decisions squarely applies to the facts in case of assessee and considering the same nominal delay from the day on which facts regarding the demand came to the knowledge of the assessee. I. The assessee submits that no hardship or prejudice will be caused to the revenue in case the application is allowed and delay is condoned however if application for condonation of delay is rejected the assessee may lose a valuable right of appeal. In view of above, it is humbly submitted that liberal view be taken and application be allowed and delay be condoned in the interest of justice. There is no filling of appeal. In view of above mala-fide intension to delay the the delay in filling appeal may kindly be condoned and appeal of assessee be admitted for adjudication on merits. J. It is humbly requested that the kindly condone the delay in filing of appeal to meet the end of justice looking to the facts and circumstances and oblige.” 3. The assessee in support of its contention also filed duly sworn affidavit before this Court, which was filed before the Ld. Commissioner and therefore prayed that one last and final opportunity may be given to the assessee to substantiate its claim qua condonation of delay which the Ld. Commissioner failed to give by issuing any notice for granting opportunity of being heard. 4. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as the Ld. Commissioner before dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee in limini for want of limitation, has not given any opportunity of being heard to the assessee and therefore for substantial justice and in order to follow principles of natural justice, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and consequently remanding the instant case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on the application for condonation of delay of 202 days in filling of the first appeal before him and on condoning the delay, to pass the decision on merits. 4 ITA.No. 624/NAG/2024 5. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23.06.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (K.M. ROY) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) Accountant Member Judicial Member vr/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Nagpur concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. 5. Guard File. By Order //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Nagpur Bench. "