MEENA DATTATRAY FATAK,PUNE V. ITO WARD 7(3), PUNE

ITA 581/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Meena Dattatray Fatak, the appellant, who contested the orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, and the Income Tax Officer (ITO) Ward 7(3), Pune, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary contention was the incorrect email address used for communication by the tax authorities, which led to a significant delay in filing the appeal. The ITAT found that the delay was due to a reasonable cause and not intentional, thus allowing the appeal for statistical purposes and remanding the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 717516 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV THAKKAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.581/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Meena Dattatray Fatak S.No.50/1, Near Vishaldeep Residency, Chandan Nagar, Pune 411014, Maharashtra PAN: ABBPF6279J Vs. ITO Ward 7(3), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 03.11.2023 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 09.12.2019 passed u/s.144 of the Act. 2. Registry has informed that the appeal before this Tribunal is time barred by 397 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay which reads as follows : “1. That I am a widow and uneducated with no children, living alone and I am not aware about complexities of Income tax Act, 1961 (\"the Act\") and Rules made thereunder. Appellant by : Shri Rajiv Thakkar Respondent by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 21.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 14.08.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.581/PUN/2025 Meena Dattatray Fatak 2 2. That I was not aware the last date for filing of appeal before the Hon'ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal against the order under section 250 of the Act passed by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in my case was 02 January, 2024. 3. That, all the notices issued u/s 250 of the Act, by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals (CIT(A)) were erroneously sent to the incorrect e-mail address of the Appellant, namely raju [e-mail], which is different from the e-mail address provided by the Appellant while filing Form-35 and the e- mail address registered on the Income Tax Portal, namely raju [e-mail]. The copy of the Form-35 and screenshot of the portal wherein the said correct e-mail address is reflected is attached herewith as Annexure-1 and Annexure-2 for your ready reference and record. Further, the copy of the screenshot of the income tax portal reflecting the e-mail address to which notices were issued is attached herewith as Annexure-3 for your ready reference and record. 4. That the order passed u/s 250 of the Act was also issued on the incorrect e-mail address as stated above and as a result, I remained unaware of the order and was unable to file Form-36 within prescribed due date. The said fact came to light only when I appointed a new tax consultant for future income-tax-related matters. 5. That, due to non-receipt of notices, they could not be complied with and the necessary actions against the CIT (A) order could not be taken. 6. That because of the above mentioned reasons, there was a delay of 426 days in the filing of Form-36 before the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. 7. That, I would like to assure you that my intention was never to avoid complying with the Income-tax regulations. However, the notices being sent to incorrect e-mail address, I was unable to provide a timely response. 8. That this affidavit is executed in order to bring on record, the facts happened in my case. It is also to bring on record that the delay has been caused unintentionally and due to reasonable cause and it is humbly requested that delay caused be condoned and the appeal filed be decided on merit.” 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the affidavit, we are satisfied that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee could not file the appeal within the stipulated time. We therefore condone the delay of 397 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal in light of judgments of Hon’ble Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.581/PUN/2025 Meena Dattatray Fatak 3 Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382). 4. Coming to merits of the case, we find that assessment order as well as First Appellate order in this case are passed exparte. Considering the fact that assessee could not substantiate its case by any representation adducing cogent evidences, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the instant appeal and in all fairness the issues raised on merits requires to be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) shall in the course of set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering the submissions/evidences filed by the assessee shall pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.581/PUN/2025 Meena Dattatray Fatak 4 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 14th day of August, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 14th August, 2025. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "