- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC , PUNE , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM . / ITA NO. 856 /P U N/201 8 / ASSESS MENT YEAR : 20 14 - 15 KISAN VASANT PAWAR SR. NO.10/12, PAWAR ALI, FURSUNGI, TAL HAVELI, PUNE 41 2201 . / APPELLANT PAN: A JMPP9532H VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 14 ( 4 ) , PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : S HRI RAJESH GAWALI / DATE OF HEARING : 1 5 . 0 1 .201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25 . 0 1 .201 9 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH E APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - 4 , PUNE , DATED 0 9 . 0 2 .20 1 8 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 14 - 15 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - ITA NO. 856 /P U N/20 1 8 KISAN V PAWAR 2 1 . ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY OF 90 DAYS INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT YOUR APPELLANT WAS UNFIT DUE TO MEDICAL CONDITION AND HIS COUNSEL WAS OCCUPIED IN CERTAIN OTHER LEGAL COMPLIA NCE WHICH HAS RESULTED INTO FILING THE APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THIS, MATTER MAY KINDLY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR THE MATTER TO BE DECIDED ON MERIT BY CONDONING THE DELAY IN THE INTEREST OF PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABO VE GROUND FOLLOWING GROUND IS TAKEN ON MERIT; 2 . ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THE AS SESSE E IS THE CONSULTING ENGINEER THEREFORE HIS CASE IS COVERED U/S 44AA TO WHICH SECTION 44AD DO NOT APPLY THEREFORE ACTION OF ESTIMATION OF INCOME BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD IS BAD IN LAW AND FURTHER ACTION OF DISALLOWING EXPENSES OF RS.2 6,59,322/ - CLAIMS AGAINST PROFESSIONAL INCOME AND IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.10.58,674/ - IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE STRUCK DOWN. 3. NOTI CE FOR HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST BUT THE ENVELOP AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE WERE RETURNE D BACK. 4. THE PERUSAL OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL REVEALS THAT THE FIRST ISSUE WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED IS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY OF 90 DAYS AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS. THE PERUSAL OF APPELLATE ORDER REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD POINTED OUT BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT HE WAS SUFFERING FROM DENGUE AND WITH CHICKUNGUNYA AND ADVISED COMPLETE REST AND THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL LATE BY ABOUT 89 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT AND ALSO FURNISHED N ECESSARY CERTIFICATES. 5. I FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE THAT BECAUSE OF HIS MEDICAL CONDITION, HE COULD NOT FILE APPEAL IN TIME. ACCORDINGLY, I CONDONE THE DELAY OF 9 0 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL LATE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME ON MERITS AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF ITA NO. 856 /P U N/20 1 8 KISAN V PAWAR 3 HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF JANUARY , 201 9 . SD/ - (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 25 TH JANUARY , 201 9 . GCV SR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4 , PUNE ; 4. THE PR. CIT - 6 , PUNE ; 5. 6. , , , - / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE