DURGA KAILAS GUPTA,MALEGAON V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MALEGAON

ITA 2435/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves four appeals filed by the assessee, Durga Kailas Gupta, against the orders of the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for various assessment years. The appeals were initially dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) due to being barred by limitation. However, the Tribunal found that the delay was caused by non-communication from the previous consultant and thus condoned the delay. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed returns as her income was below the basic exemption limit but had responded to a notice under section 148 by filing returns. The Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the ld.CIT(A) for a fresh examination on merits, emphasizing the need for the assessee to provide updated contact information and to be responsive to communications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 39205 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD S SHINGTE
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 148; 250

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”ए” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। 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.2425, 2427, 2435 & 2436/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2017-18, 2013-14 & 2013-14 Durga Kailas Gupta, New Janta Building, G.No.425, P.No.5, Chalisgaon Phata, Maharashtra – 423203. PAN: ALAPG0234F V s The Income Tax Officer, Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Pramod S Shingte – AR Revenue by Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - DR Date of hearing 19/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 04/03/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM: This bunch of four appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; for the assessment years referred above. Assessee has filed identical grounds for all these years. Since the issue involved is common, therefore, all these appeals were heard together and are being decided by this common order. ITA Nos.2425, 2427, 2435 & 2436/PUN/2024 [A] 2 1.1 Registry informed that there is a delay 233 days each in ITA No.2425, 2427 & 2435/PUN/2024 and delay of 293 days in ITA No.2436/PUN/2024. An Affidavit has been filed providing reasons for the delay in filing the appeals. On going through the same, we notice that the said delay was on account of common reason of non- communication to the assessee as the notices of hearing were sent on the Email-id of the previous consultant who did not informed the assessee and also the assessee is not much educated and does not know intrinsic provisions of law. We have carefully gone through the Affidavit and notice that on account of non-communication by consultant who was looking after the tax work of the assessee, the instant appeal could not be filed in time and considering it to be a reasonable cause, we condone the delay and admit all the four appeals for adjudication. 2. At the outset of hearing, ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeals before the ld.CIT(A) were barred by limitation and the delay in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A) were not condoned and he accordingly, dismissed the appeal by not admitting being barred by limitation. Prayer has been made before us. for providing one more opportunity. ITA Nos.2425, 2427, 2435 & 2436/PUN/2024 [A] 3 3. On the other hand, the ld.DR for the Revenue supported the impugned order. 4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We notice that the assessee is engaged in the business of wholesale trading of cement and building material. She did not file the return of income as her Total Income was below the basic exemption limitation. However, in reply to notice under section 148 of the Act, she has furnished the return of income. There were certain additions made by the Assessing Officer before whom assessee could not plead properly resulting into best judgments assessment. Considering all the series of facts, prima-facie the assessee in the instant case, does not deserve any relief. However, considering the grievances made in the Affidavit and in the larger interest of justice, we restore the issues on merit to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. The assessee shall provide the correct and active email-id and contact details at the earliest o the Income Tax Portal. The ld.CIT(A) shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, but in case the assessee do not respond to the communication sent on the updated email-id on more than two occasions, then the ld.CIT(A) shall proceed to decide in accordance ITA Nos.2425, 2427, 2435 & 2436/PUN/2024 [A] 4 with law as contemplated in section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to seek adjournment unless otherwise required. Accordingly, effective grounds of appeals by the Assessee raised in ITA Nos.2425, 2427, 2435 & 2436/PUN/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose. 5. In the result, all four the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 4th March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (DR. MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 4th Mar, 2025/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "