Prime Centre and Developers Private Ltd., Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle -1(1), Pune

ITA 218/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Prime Centre and Developers Private Limited appealing against the order of the CIT(A), Pune, which confirmed the levy of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was the CIT(A)'s refusal to condone the delay in filing the appeal, which the assessee argued was due to a reasonable cause. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument regarding the delay and directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the case on its merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137351 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: AllowedAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.218/PUN./2022 Assessment Year 2009-2010 Prime Centre And Developers Private Limited, 504, Senapati Bapat Road, Corporate Plaza, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune-411016. Maharashtra. PAN AABCP4332Q vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Pune. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Suhas Bora For Revenue : Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of Hearing : 20.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 05.01.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2009-2010, arises against the CIT(A), Pune-11, Pune's order dated 14.02.2022, in Din & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/ 2021-22/1039726562(1), involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2 ITA.No.218/PUN./2022 Prime Centre and Developers Private Limited, Pune. 3. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in holding the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned without appreciating the contention of the appellant that the Penalty Order of the AO is received by the appellant on 03.07.2017. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the contention of the appellant raised without prejudice and it refused to condone the delay in filing the appeal without considering that the documentary evidences submitted by the appellant which proves that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue on merits and accordingly confirmed the levy of penalty only the technical grounds. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the following important fact a. That delay in filing appeal before CIT (A) was not deliberate. 3 ITA.No.218/PUN./2022 Prime Centre and Developers Private Limited, Pune. b. That there was sufficient cause behind delay in filing an appeal before CIT(A). c. The appellant has submitted a detailed reason along with the affidavit of the person who has explained the reasons for the delay. 5. The appellant prays that the delay be condoned and the order passed by the CIT(A) be sent back to decide the issue on merits. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 4. In this case, the ld. Authorised Representative (ld.AR) of the assessee submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay, though there has been reasonable cause for delay. There was a delay of around 81 days. The ld.AR had submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that their Mumbai Office was not operational. The order was served at Mumbai Office by post, therefore, there is a delay. 5. The ld. Departmental Representative (ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and Assessing Officer (AO). 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. There is a delay of 81 days. However, there is a reasonable cause for delay which was explained before the 4 ITA.No.218/PUN./2022 Prime Centre and Developers Private Limited, Pune. ld. CIT(A) and he has reproduced it in his order. Substantial justice is more important, therefore, we set- aside the order to ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the case de novo after giving opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05.01.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 05 th January, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. CIT(A) concerned. 4. The CIT concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “B” Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches Pune.