SHRI DILIP JAYWANTRAO DHMALE, PUNE V. ITO WARD 6(30, PUNE

ITA 2059/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0162 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 144; 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2059/PUN/2019 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Dilip Jaywantrao Dhmale, 202, Ganesh Peth, Pune-411002. PAN : AGYPD6929M Vs. ITO, Ward-6(3), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises against the CIT(A)-4, Pune’s order dated 16.10.2019 passed in case no.PN/CIT(A)-4/Ward-6(3), Pune/38/2017-18/457 involving proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Learned counsel submits at the outset that the assessee only presses for his third substantive ground that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in declining his section Assessee by : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date of hearing : 27.07.2022 Date of pronouncement : 27.07.2022 ITA No.2059/PUN/2019 2 54F deduction claim. Mr. Kulkarni’s sole argument raised during the course of hearing is that the assessee could not even file return and all the supportive evidence because of circumstances beyond his control on account of the fact that there existed very serious communication gap with the auditor. And that although the learned CIT(A) had sought for remand report which came to be filed by the Assessing Officer during the course of lower appellate proceedings, the very factual position continued therein as well. He thus sought to pray for one more effective innings before the Assessing Officer in larger interest of justice. 3. Mr. Jasnani vehemently opposed the assessee’s argument in light of the above narrated factual position. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival contentions and deem it a fit case to restore the assessee’s section 54F deduction issue back to the Assessing Officer in light of the fact that he could not file all necessary details throughout. The same however shall be subject to the condition that it shall be bounden duty of the assessee only to file and prove all necessary relevant evidence within two effective opportunities of hearing; at his risk and responsibility, before the Assessing Officer in ITA No.2059/PUN/2019 3 consequential proceedings which shall be considered as per law. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced on this 27 th day of July, 2022. Sd/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 27 th July, 2022. Sujeet (DOC) आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-4, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-3, Pune. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.