Surekha Rajendra Patil, Ahmednagar V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

ITA 1078/PUN/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4670 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-12-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1078/PUN/2023 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Surekha Rajendra Patil A/P Wasunde, Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar PIN – 414 302 Maharashtra. PAN AGGPP2708Q vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Income Tax Office, Behind Mahesh Theatre, Aurangabad Road, Ahmednagar – 414 001. Appellant Respondent For Assessee : Shri Prasad Bhandari For Revenue : Shri Umesh Phade Date of Hearing : 14.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 14.12.2023 ORDER PER BENCH : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015- 2016, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short [the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056169977(1), dated 17.09.2023, involving proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It is noticed at the outset during the course of hearing that there is hardly much a need for us to deal with 2 ITA.No.1078/PUN./2023 the relevant factual matrix at length once it has come on record that the CIT(A) has refused to condone 91 days delay in filing of the lower appeal at the assessee’s behest. It is in this factual backdrop that we are of the opinion, more particularly when the Assessing Officer’s corresponding ex-parte assessment dated 21.12.2017 followed by filing of the lower appeal on 21.04.2018; that the impugned delay has arisen because of lack of necessary information to the assessee regarding the afore stated assessment. 3. The Revenue vehemently argued before us that the assessee had not submitted any justifiable reason for the purpose of condoning the impugned delay. We are of the view that the same hardly carries any merit in light of the clinching fact that there is no material on record which could indicate assessee to be negligent in pursuing it’s statutory remedy before the CIT(A). Be that as it may, hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the concerned litigants right to get the necessary adjudication on merits. We thus condone the impugned delay of 91 days in filing of the assessee’s lower appeal and restore the assessee’s all remaining grounds back to the CIT(A) for his further necessary 3 ITA.No.1078/PUN./2023 adjudication on merits preferably within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14.12.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 14 th December, 2023 VBP/- Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The NFAC, Delhi. 4. The CIT-1, Pune. 5. DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. Guard File. BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Pune.