Vinita Deepak Ahuja, Kolhapur V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 723/PUN/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8965 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• 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; 40A(3); 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 143(1); 250

Judgement Text

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे न्यायपीठ, “बी” बेंच, पुणे में ॥ ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No. 723/PUN/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019 Vinita Deepak Ahuja 1657-58, Lohiya Compound, Gandhi Nagar, Kolhapur. PAN : ALNPS6479B . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru. . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani स ु नवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 08/09/2022 आदेश / ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; This appeal challenges the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune [for short “CIT(A)”] dt. 10/12/2021 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short “the Act”], which arisen from an order of intimation dt. 29/04/2019 u/s 143(1) from the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax CPC, Bengaluru [for short “AO”] for assessment year [for short “AY”] 2018-19. Vinita Deepak Ahuja ITA No. 723/PUN/2021 AY: 2018-19 ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 6 2. The substantive ground of dispute under adjudication seeks answer as to whether cash payment towards electricity expenses paid to public sector electricity company can hit by section 40A(3) of the Act. 3. The grounds raised for adjudication are; 1. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in Law the Ld. CIT(A)-11, Pune erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal even through thee was reasonable cause in delayed filing of appeal. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A)-11, Pune erred in confirming the addition made by the DCIT, CPC Bengaluru by way of adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) being disallowance u/s 40A(3) in respect of payment of electricity charges to Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited of Rs. 7,07,100/-. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify, delete or add a new ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 4. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are; the appellant is an individual assessee engaged in the trading business in the name of “Ahuja Creations” and for the AY 2018-19 filed her return of income [for short “ITR”] on Vinita Deepak Ahuja ITA No. 723/PUN/2021 AY: 2018-19 ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 6 28/10/2018 declaring income of ₹7,18,420/- which was processed u/s 143(1) by disallowing an amount of ₹7,07,100/- u/s 40A(3) on account of cash expenditure incurred towards payment of electricity expenses and debited to profit & loss account [for short “P&L”] on the basis of tax audit report. 5. Aggrieved by the said disallowance, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority on 08/07/2020 accompanying an affidavit in support of petition for condonation of delay of 405 days in filing the said appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) however, finding the reasons not convincing, rejected the appeal for admission, consequently the appellant has knocked the doors of Tribunal for violation of principal of natural justice beside contending meritare ground as laid at para 3 herein before. 6. In the course of physical hearing, the learned representative of the assessee [for short “AR”] without touching the merits of the case, prayed for remanding back the file to the first appellate authority on the ground Vinita Deepak Ahuja ITA No. 723/PUN/2021 AY: 2018-19 ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 6 of denial of natural justice, which the learned departmental representative [for short “DR”] strongly contrasted for unconvincing reasons. 7. After hearing to the rival contentions of both the parties on ground number 1; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short “ITAT, Rules”] perused the material placed on records and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of settled legal position and the case laws relied upon by the appellant assessee as well the respondent revenue. 8. Considering the submission of the appellant in substantiating & explaining nature and length of delay, the we ad idem, in the light of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in “Collector Land Acquisition Vs MST Katiji and Others” reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC) and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in “CIT Vs ISRO Satellite Centre” reported at 263 ITR 549 (Kar) and Hon’ble Bombay High Court in “CIT Vs Velingkar Brothers” reported at 289 ITR 382 (Bom), find that, there was sufficient cause for condoning the delay in institution of appeal before first appellate Vinita Deepak Ahuja ITA No. 723/PUN/2021 AY: 2018-19 ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 6 authority, and hence Ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay keeping in view of the laws laid down by the Hon’ble Courts cited hereinbefore and further the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in “Areva T and D India Ltd Vs JCIT”, 287 ITR 555 wherein on identical set of facts, delay was condoned on the basis of affidavit filed explaining the reasons. Consequently we remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties and since the matter has been sent back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) on the first ground itself, we therefore do not express any opinion on merits of the case. 9. Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant assessee is allowed in above terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Thursday 08 th day of September, 2022. -S/d- -S/d- SS VISWANETHRA RAVI G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE ; दिन ांक / Dated : 08 th day of September, 2022. Vinita Deepak Ahuja ITA No. 723/PUN/2021 AY: 2018-19 ITAT-Pune Page 6 of 6 आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune (Mh-India) 4. The CIT(A)-11, Pune (Mh-India) 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि,आयकरअपीलीय न्य य दिकरण, पुणे “बी” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, Pune “B” Bench, Pune. 6. ग र्डफ़ इल / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / BY RDER, िररष्ठ दनजी सदचि / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्य य दिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.