Digvijay G Nagrani, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle 2(3), Pune, Pune

ITA 262/PUN/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [NaN] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2202 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2021
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HARI KRISHAN
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.259 to 262/PUN/2021 नधा रण वष / Assessment Years : 2001-02 to 2004-05 Digvijay G. Nagrani, 1503, Ventage by Rucha Group, Pancard Club Road, Baner, Pune 411 045 Maharashtra PAN : AAIPN2626D Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(3), Pune (Appellant) (Respondent) आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : These four appeals by the assessee relate to the assessment years 2001-02 to 2004-05. Since all these appeals are on based on similar facts and grounds, arising from a common order passed by the CIT(A) on 28-09-2015, I am proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. Briefly stated, the facts for the assessment year 2001-02 are that a search was conducted on the assessee on 29-07- 2003. Based on the incriminating material found during the Appellant by Shri Hari Krishan Respondent by Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav Date of hearing 02-03-2022 Date of pronouncement 02-03-2022 ITA Nos. 259 to 262/PUN/2021 Digvijay G. Nagrani 2 course of search and other relevant evidence, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining total income at Rs.20,64,460/-. Similar facts prevail in respect of other assessment years. The assessee filed appeals before the ld. CIT(A) in respect of the years under consideration, which came to be dismissed as time barred by one day. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal. 3. I have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that the ld. CIT(A) did not condone the so-called delay of one day on the ground that the assessee did not pray for its condonation by showing any sufficient cause. On the other hand, the ld. AR submitted that the appeals were not time barred inasmuch as the prescribed period of 30 days ended on Sunday and the appeals were filed on the immediately next working day, i.e. Monday, which led to the technical delay of one day. 4. At this stage, it would be pertinent to take note of section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 with the heading `Computation of time’, which provides that: `Where, by any (Central Act) or regulation made after the commencement of this Act, any act or proceeding is directed to allowed to be ITA Nos. 259 to 262/PUN/2021 Digvijay G. Nagrani 3 done or taken in any Court or office on a certain day or within a prescribed period, then, if the Court or office is closed on that day or that day or the last day of the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the Court or office is open.’ In view of the fact that the last day for filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A) in the instant case was a non-working day, such appeals filed on the immediately next working day cannot be considered as barred by limitation. 5. As can be seen that the ld. CIT(A) has also dismissed the appeals in limine on the ground that the assessee did not participate in the proceedings before him. The ld. AR elaborated the reasons which led to non-participation by the assessee in the appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). I am satisfied with the same. As such, the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remitted to the file of ld. CIT(A) for disposing of all the four appeals on merits as per law after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. ITA Nos. 259 to 262/PUN/2021 Digvijay G. Nagrani 4 6. In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 02 nd March, 2022. Sd/- (R.S.SYAL) उपा य / VICE PRESIDENT प ु णे Pune; दनांक Dated : 02 nd March, 2022 Satish आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant; 2. यथ / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयु (अपील) / The CIT (Appeals)-13, Pune 4. The Pr. CIT, Central, Pune 5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, प ु णे “SMC” / DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune ITA Nos. 259 to 262/PUN/2021 Digvijay G. Nagrani 5 Date 1. Draft dictated on 02-03-2022 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 02-03-2022 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member -- JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. -- JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *