Manoj Sahadevrao Jadhav, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune

ITA 91/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1479 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VITTHAL BHOSALE
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Section: 271(1)(c); 201; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, J UDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO. 91 /PUN/201 8 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201 1 - 12 MANOJ SAHADEVRAO JADHAV, FLAT NO. 602, ISHAN SHRUSTI, WARJE, PUNE - 411052 PAN : AEOPJ8160N ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : N O N E REVENUE BY : SHRI VITTHAL BHOSALE / DATE OF HEARING : 11 - 06 - 2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 - 07 - 202 1 / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28 - 11 - 2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3 , PUNE [CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 1 - 12 WHEREIN HE CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2 ITA NO .91/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2011 - 12 2. WE FIND NO REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FILED SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. THE ASSESSEE CALLED ABSE NT AND SET EX - PARTE. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO HEAR THE LD. DR AND PASS ORDER BASING ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. THE ASSESSEE RAISED AS MANY AS SIX GROUNDS AMONGST WHICH THE EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED FOR CONSIDERATION IS AS TO WHETHER THE CIT( A) JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING DEFINITE FINDING ON PETITION FILED TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 5. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED TOTAL INCOME THROUGH HIS RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.10,63,840/ - AND IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE AO DETERMINED THE SAME AT RS.13,80,233/ - INTER ALIA MAKING ADDITION U/S. 40A(3), 68 OF THE ACT, INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND UNDISCLOSED INT EREST. THE AO INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE MADE SUBMISSIONS BUT HOWEVER THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.1,35,000/ - VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 17 - 09 - 2014 U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITH A DELAY OF 525 DAY S . WE NOTE THAT TO CONDONE THE SAID DELAY THE ASSESSEE MAINLY CONTESTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO PENALTY ORDER WAS NOT SERVED O N HIM AND HE CHANGED HIS ADDRESS FROM 3 ITA NO .91/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2011 - 12 721, BALAJI COMPLEX, GURUWAR PETH, PUNE TO THE PRESENT ADDRESS REFLECTING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) SPECIFICALLY DID NOT EXAMINE THE RECORD AVAILABLE WITH REVENUE DEPARTMENT WHETHER THE STATEMEN T OF ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ASSESSMENT AND PENALTY ORDERS TRUE OR NOT BUT HOWEVER CONSIDERING THE REASONS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CONDONATION PETITION , TH E CIT(A) HELD NO SUFFICIENT REASONS MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE A ND DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERITS. THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITH ABNORMAL DELAY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT ASSISTANCE OF PROFESSIONAL TO LOOK AFTER THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO IN AS SESSMENT AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AS WELL BUT THE STATEMENT OF NON - RECEIPT OF ORDERS IS NOT CORRECT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY PROOF BEFORE THE CIT(A) SUBSTANTIATING THE REASONS STATED IN THE CONDONATION PETITION WITH EVIDENCES. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS REGISTERED ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR AND UNDERTAKES THE CONTRACTS FOR ERECTION OF ELECTRICAL TOWER IN REMOTE AREA OF STATE OF MAHARASHTRA FOR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO. LTD. IT IS ALSO ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE CHANGED HIS ADDRESS FROM GURUWAR PETH , PUNE TO WARJE , PUNE . WE NOTE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE ADDRESSES WERE MENTIONED AS FLAT NO. 602, ISHAN SHRUSTI, WARJE, PUNE AND AS IT APPEARS THE CHANGE D OF ADDRESS FROM GURUWAR PETH TO WARJE AREA WERE NOT IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF REVENUE DEPARTMENT. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE REASONS STATED IN THE CONDONATION PETITION AND AS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE CIT(A) , WE ARE OF THE OPINION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE DELAY OF 525 DAYS ARE CONDONED SIN CE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THE APPEAL WAS NOT DECIDED ON MERITS. WE DEEM IT PROPER TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR HIS 4 ITA NO .91/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2011 - 12 FRESH CONSIDERATION. THUS, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05 TH JULY, 2021 . SD/ - SD/ - ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) ( S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 05 TH JULY, 202 1 . RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - 3 , PUNE 4. THE PR. CIT - 2 , PUNE 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. // // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE