MOHD FAROOQUE MOHD RAFIQUE BAGBAN,NANDURBAR V. ITO WARD-1, DHULE

ITA 2086/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves three appeals by Mohd. Farooque Mohd. Rafique Bagban against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre concerning the Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeals were initially dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) due to a significant delay in filing, attributed to the assessee's and his family's health issues during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's reasons for the delay and decided to remand the cases back to the ld.CIT(A) for a fresh examination on merits, emphasizing the need for substantial justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474148 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 SC
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHILPA N. C
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPA KHARE
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.2086 to 2088/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mohd. Farooque Mohd. Rafique Bagban, Fruit Merchant Bagwan Galli, Shahada Nandurbar-425409 Maharashtra PAN : AJDPB2200K Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dhule Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned three appeals pertaining to the Assessment Year 2018-19 are directed against the separate orders passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) which inturn are arising out of the respective Assessment orders. Assessee by : Ms. Deepa Khare Revenue by : Ms. Shilpa N.C. Date of hearing : 20.01.2025 Date of pronouncement : 23.01.2025 ITA Nos.2086 to 2088/PUN/2024 Mohd Farooque Mohd. Rafique Bagban 2 2. The fact anent to ITA No.2086/PUN/2024 are that the assessee is an individual stated to be a Fruit seller working on commission basis. He filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2018-19 declaring income of Rs.8,21,210/-. The case selected for Limited Scrutiny followed by issuance of statutory notices and there was no compliance by assessee to such notices. Based on the details available with the Assessing Officer, he noticed that assessee has shown total commission income of Rs.19,70,000/- after deducting expenses of Rs.11,48,790/- with net profit at Rs.8,21,210/-. However, on the basis of SFT data, ld. AO noticed that assesee made huge cash deposits in the banks aggregating to Rs.9,79,93,295/-. Since the assessee has not maintained any books of account and there was no participation by the assessee substantiating the source of cash deposits, ld. AO made addition of Rs.78,39,472/- @ 8% on the total turnover of the assessee at Rs.9,79,93,395/-. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) with a delay of about 13 months. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. 4. Similarly, ITA Nos. 2087/PUN/2024 and 2088/PUN/2024 relate to penalty appeals where ld. AO levied ITA Nos.2086 to 2088/PUN/2024 Mohd Farooque Mohd. Rafique Bagban 3 penalties u/s.271B and 270A of the Act at Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.13,26,143/- respectively and the assessee preferred appeals before the ld.CIT(A) with delay of about 13-14 months. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the penalty appeals as well in limine by not condoning the delay. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the record placed before us. From the perusal of the impugned orders, it would reveal that the assessee has neither participated in the proceedings before the AO nor before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has basically dismissed the appeals in limine by not condoning the delay occurred in the appeals. The reasons attributed by the assessee for not complying with the notices are that, at the relevant point of time, assessee and his family members were under treatment due to severe effect of covid- 19. He was completely in a disturbed state of mind and therefore could not hand over the notices issued by the department as well as the related documents to the counsel, which resulted into delay in preferring the appeals. Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us submitted that the assessee could not participate in the proceedings for the reasons beyond his control. Therefore, an opportunity may be granted to the assessee by remanding the issues on merit to the file of ld.CIT(A). ITA Nos.2086 to 2088/PUN/2024 Mohd Farooque Mohd. Rafique Bagban 4 6. In the instant appeals, the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine by not condoning the delay. In this context, we would like to quote the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 SC. In the said Judgment, their Lordships have given certain principles based on which, the issue with regard to the delay can be approached and the said portion of the order of the Judgment cited supra is reproduced hereunder: 1. Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. 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. 3. Every day's delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the 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. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. ITA Nos.2086 to 2088/PUN/2024 Mohd Farooque Mohd. Rafique Bagban 5 6. It must be grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. In light of above, we are of the opinion that delay in the instant three appeals deserve to be condoned. We therefore condone the respective delay before the ld.CIT(A). Since all the three appeals were decided exparte qua the assessee, we are of the view that in the interest of justice the appeals have to be remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Ld. Departmental Representative also has no objection for the same. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the case and considering the facts and circumstances, the issues on merit in these appeals are being remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Assessee is directed to provide proper email id before the authorities to ensure proper communication. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Finding of the ld. CIT(A) are set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos.2086 to 2088/PUN/2024 Mohd Farooque Mohd. Rafique Bagban 6 7. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 23rd day of January, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 23rd January, 2025. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ\tेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\t / The Appellant. 2. \u000bयथ\t / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब\u0011च, 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. "