PANDURANG PANJABRAO TIWADE, NAGPUR V. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, NAGPUR

ITA 60/NAG/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7828 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-03-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHAY Y. MARATHE
• Assessee Lawyers: AKSSHAY DURAGKAR
• Keywords: Recovery proceedings; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 27; 271D; 250

Judgement Text

।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण Ɋायपीठ नागपुर मŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH : : NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING AT PUNE] BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.60/NAG/2023 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Pandurang Panjabrao Tiwade, Lonara, Gumthi, Nagpur – 441111. PAN: ASJPT1392H V s The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Nagpur. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee by Shri Aksshay Duragkar – Advocate- AR Revenue by Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.DR Date of hearing 29/03/2024 Date of pronouncement 16/04/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, for A.Y.2017-18 emanating from penalty order under section 271D of the Act dated 03.03.2020. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.60/NAG/2023 Pandurang Panjabrao Tiwade [A] 2 1. The assessee is a farmer and is having agricultural income only therefore, the assessee had not filed return of income for the relevant A.Y. The assessee had received notice u/ s 271D of Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by Hon'ble Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Nagpur for the transaction of sale of immovable property. The assessee had made various submissions during the Assessment proceedings against which order u/s 27 ID of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued by the Assessing Officer on 05/03/2020 levying a penalty of Rs. 10,85,000/-. Being aggrieved the assessee had filed an appeal against the penalty order on 14/10/2020. 2. The Appeal filed by the assessee was assigned to the National Faceless Appeals Centre in terms of Faceless Appeal Scheme, 2021 and notices during Appeal proceedings were issued online and served on mail id of the assessee. The assessee is an agriculturist living in a village who is not conversant with Computer and hence, was not aware of the multiple notices issued and order passed against the appeal filed by the assessee. On receipt of notice dated 27/12/2022 regarding recovery proceedings, the assessee came to know about the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) on 10/06/2022. 3. The order was passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) in which the Appeal filed by the Assessee “was dismissed as not admitted?’ on the grounds that the appeal had been filed by the assessee on 14/10/2020 whereas the order u/s 271D was passed on 05/03/2020 and the assessee had not filed Condonation for delay in filing of appeal. 4. However, the assessee would like to bring to your notice that the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) erred in not considering the fact that immediately after the order u/s 27ID of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed by the Assessing Officer, the entire world was stuck by the pandemic of COVID-19 and the day to day working was badly hampered by the lockdown and restrictions imposed where mere survival was the immediate and most important task for all. Also, taking cognizance of the effects of COVID-19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had sou-mo to issued an order dated 23/03/ 2020 extending the limitation period under various acts till further orders. Vide Subsequent orders issued by the ITA No.60/NAG/2023 Pandurang Panjabrao Tiwade [A] 3 Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 08/03/2021, 27/04/2021, 23/09/2021 and 10/01/2022 it was held that: ************* the period from 15/03/2020 till 28/02/2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi- judicial proceedings. ” The assessee encloses herewith copy of order issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 10/01/2022 for your kind perusal. Also, Circular No.10/2021 dated 25/05/2021 had been issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) wherein it had been clarified that: “If Different relaxations are available to the taxpayers for a particular compliance, the taxpayer is entitled to the relaxation which is more beneficial to him. Thus, for the purpose of counting the period(s) of limitation for filing of appeals before the CIT (Appeals) under the Act, the taxpayer is entitled to a relaxation which is more beneficial to him and hence the said limitation stands extended till further orders are ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 vide order dated 27* April 2021.” The assessee encloses herewith the Circular No. 10/2021 issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes for your kind perusal. 5. Thus, as per direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Circular issued by CBDT, the period from 15/03/2020 and 28/02/2022, shall not be considered for limitation of period under any Act. Thus, the delay in filing of appeal by assessee from 15/03/2020 to 14/10/2020 ought not to have been considered by Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) as delay and ought not to have been rejected the appeal of the assessee on the grounds that condonation letter had not been filed by the assessee. 6. Being aggrieved the assessee prefer this appeal on the following amongst other grounds. 1) The order passed by Hon'ble CIT(Appeals) is illegal, invalid and bad in law. ITA No.60/NAG/2023 Pandurang Panjabrao Tiwade [A] 4 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(Appeals) erred in not giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(Appeals) erred in overlooking the extension of limitation of period ordered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and not considering the fact that the assessee had filed the Appeal within the period on exclusion of limitation period as further clarified by CBDT. 4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(Appeals) ought to have considered the extension of limitation period and ought to have condoned the delay in filing of appeal by the assessee and admitting the appeal filed by the assessee. 5) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(Appeals) ought to have deleted the penalty levied of Rs. 10,85,000/- on the assessee. 6) That the Appellant craves leave to alter, amend, vary or add any other grounds of Appeal.” Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is observed that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee filed against the order under section 271D of the Act, dated 03.03.2020 only on one ground i.e. delay of more than three months without sufficient reason. 2.1 It is observed that the order under section 271D was passed on 03.03.2020. As per section 249(2) of the Act, time ITA No.60/NAG/2023 Pandurang Panjabrao Tiwade [A] 5 limit to file the appeal is 30 days from the date of the service of the order. Section 249(3) gives discretion to ld.CIT(A) to admit appeal filed beyond 30 days if there are sufficient reasons. As per Form No.35 filed by assessee, the order under section 271D was served on assessee on 05.03.2020. This fact is also mentioned by ld.CIT(A) in his order. The appeal was filed on 14.10.2020. From 15.03.2020 there was Lockdown i.e.Covid-19 in the entire country. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has suo-moto taken cognizance in Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation in Suo Motu W.P.(C) No.3 of 2020 and extended the limitation dates. In these facts and circumstances of the case, there is no delay in filing the appeal by the assessee before the ld.CIT(A). Hence, we direct the ld.CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merit. Accordingly, the order of ld.CIT(A) is set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The ld.CIT(A) shall grant opportunity to the assessee. 3. There has been delay in filing of appeal by the assessee before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. We find there was sufficient reason for delay. Accordingly, delay is condoned. ITA No.60/NAG/2023 Pandurang Panjabrao Tiwade [A] 6 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 16 th April, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S.GODARA) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 16 th April, 2024/ 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, नागपुर बᱶच, नागपुर/ DR, ITAT, Bench, Nagpur. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.