KALPANA PRAKASH KALE,PUNE V. .ITO WARD 6(5), PUNE

ITA 1839/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Kalpana Prakash Kale, who did not file her income tax return for the assessment year 2015-16. The Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice under section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to information about her purchasing an immovable property valued at Rs.30 lakhs or more. After no response from the assessee, the case was reopened and an assessment was made under section 144, adding Rs.98,45,021 as unexplained investment in house property under section 69 of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a 54-day delay in filing, which was not condoned. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., preferred substantial justice over technical considerations and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471209 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 02-09-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPA KHARE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained investment; Salary income
• Section: 148; 144; 142(1); 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1839/PUN/2024 Assessment year : 2015-16 Kalpana Prakash Kale Madhuli Apartment, Flat No.A307, 3rd Floor, S.No.56/5B, Wadgaon Budruk, Near Abhiruchi Mall, Pune – 411041 Vs. ITO, Ward 6(5), Pune PAN: AZJPK7652C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 11-12-2024 Date of pronouncement : 11-12-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.07.2024 of the CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2015-16. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed her return of income for the year under consideration. On the basis of information that the assessee has purchased an immovable property valued at Rs.30 lakhs or more, a show cause notice was issued u/s 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer regarding escapement of income and to explain as to why notice u/s 148 of the Act should not be issued. However, there was no response from the side of the 2 ITA No.1839/PUN/2024 assessee for which the case of the assessee was reopened by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer by issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 02.04.2022. However, no return was filed in response to the same. The subsequent notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was also remained un-complied with. The Assessing Officer thereafter completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act by making addition of Rs.98,45,021/- u/s 69 of the Act being unexplained investment in house property. 3. Since there was a delay of 54 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal by not condoning the delay when there was sufficient cause beyond the control of the assessee. 2. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the impugned reassessment proceedings are valid in law which are initiated by issue of notice u/s 148 Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in contravention of the provisions of Section 151A. 3. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the impugned reassessment proceedings are valid in law in absence of service of notice u/s 148. 4. Whether on facts and in circumstances of the case, the impugned the notice dated 2nd April 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation as per the first proviso to Section 149 of the Act? 5. The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.98,45,021/- in respect of purchase of property as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, the source of which can be fully substantiated 6. The appellant craves to add, alter, modify or substitute any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. 3 ITA No.1839/PUN/2024 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the property in question was purchased by her son Mr. Milind Prakash Kale, who is Non-Resident Indian, from his current salary income in USA. The assessee being a housewife and not being technically literate and does not know how to open e-mail sent by the department, could not file the appeal in time. She submitted that despite a condonation application filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC explaining the reasons for such delay, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in a very technical manner did not condone the delay of 54 days and treated the appeal as inadmissible being barred by limitation. She submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and grant an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case by filing the requisite details. 6. The Ld. DR on the other hand has no serious objection to the condonation of the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC considering the facts of the case. 7. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. We find the Ld. CIT(A) in the instant case did not condone the delay of 54 days in filing of the appeal by the assessee and dismissed the appeal as inadmissible being barred by limitation. A perusal of the details filed before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC shows that the assessee is a housewife and not technically literate. It also emerges from the record that the property in question was purchased by the NRI son of the assessee 4 ITA No.1839/PUN/2024 jointly with the assessee. The funds are out of the income of the son of the assessee. Even though the reasons for such delay in not filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was explained, we find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC relying on various decisions did not condone the delay of 54 days in filing of the appeal before him. 8. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 9. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited (supra) and considering the fact that the delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee was not deliberate but a technical defect, we restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the issue on merit as per fact and law after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to submit the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFACE on the appointed date 5 ITA No.1839/PUN/2024 without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court at the time of hearing itself on 11th December, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 11th December, 2024 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune 6 ITA No.1839/PUN/2024 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 11.12.2024 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 11.12.2024 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order "