NAIM YUSUF KURESHI,SATARA V. ITO, WARD-3, SATARA, SATARA

ITA 2226/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Naim Yusuf Kureshi against the order of the CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which arose from an order passed under sections 147 and 144 of the Act. The primary grievances of the assessee included the lack of proper opportunity to present his case, the illiteracy of the assessee which hindered his understanding of the notices and orders, and the procedural lapses in the issuance and service of notices. The Tribunal noted the assessee's engagement in livestock trading and his residence in a rural area, which contributed to his unawareness of the technicalities involved in the appeal process. The Tribunal took a liberal approach, considering the circumstances of the assessee, and decided to condone the delay and remand the case for a fresh examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 472608 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP P. SATHE
• Assessee Lawyers: V.F. MOMIN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148; 144; 250; 69; 69A

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \"ए\" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"A\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2226/PUN/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Naim Yusuf Kureshi, Kalekar Colony, Subhashnagar, Koregaon, Tal-Koregaon, Dist-Satara- 415501 PAN-ETUPK6994J Vs. ITO Ward-3, Satara अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee by: Shri V.F. Momin Department by: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe, JCIT Date of hearing: 15-01-2025 Date of Pronouncement: 18-03-2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT Appeal (NFAC) u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 21.01.2024 which is arising out of Order passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act dated 15.02.2022 framed by ITO assessment unit. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. That aforesaid Ex-Party order u/s 250 of IT Act has been passed by learned commissioner of income tax without considering the merits. As per the doctrine of natural justice learned commissioner had not given a proper opportunity to the assessee. 2. That learned commissioner of income tax has been not given any opportunity to assessee to file income tax return. Therefore, assessee could not give any proper information about the objections. 3. That learned commissioner of income tax has not taken into consideration the that the assessee is illiterate person. assessee is wholly depended upon his chartered accountant. And due to problems of chartered accountant he is unable to give assessee proper information about aforesaid order. Therefore, assessee was not aware about the order u/s 250. 2 ITA No.2226/PUN/2024 4. That learned commissioner of income tax has not taken into consideration that to file an appeal assessee should get proper information considering the fact that, assessee unable to understand or use electric device like Phone, laptop, computer even though the assessee cannot use e-mail and other bas features of devices. As well as he is not aware about digital form of notice. Hence assessee had no any knowledge about the aforesaid order. 5. Though the assessee is illiterate person he is not able to understand the notices issued under IT Act. Considering this fact assessee did not understand the notices u/s of IT Act. Due to misunderstanding assessee would not able to understand the order and notices. 6. That assessee engaging in trading of livestock. After getting money from seller assessee buys livestock from farmers and pay them in cash. Margin between buying and selling is profit of Assessee. Deposit and withdrawal are transactions of assessee, credit entries reflected in assessee's bank account are not profit. 7. That officer in Assessment unit of income tax department has wrongly concluded that section 69 A of Income tax act is attracted in this assessment. credit entries amounting to Rs.1,07,93,000/-, corresponding to cash withdrawals of Rs.1,07,93,000/- should not be treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of Income Tax Act, 1961. assessee was ready to give a proper explanation. assessee does not get a proper opportunity to explain. 8. That order under section 271 AAC (1) of the Income Tax Act and Notice of demand under section 156 of the Income-Tax Act has been ordered on same date which is 10/07/2023. As per section 220 after issuing notice U/s 156 amount shall be paid within month. assessee has not given that opportunity. Therefore, order u/s 271 AAC (1) is null and void. 9. That considering the assessment order it is contended that Notice u/s 142(1),144 SCN and other notices had not been received. there is no any remark has given that notice has been served to assessee or not regarding notice u/s 148 and intimation letter. Without serving notices Assessment unit officer of income tax department has wrongly made an assessment. Therefore, this assessment needs to be set aside. 10. That assessee is ready to furnish balance sheet and profit, loss statement. assessee has ready to furnish any necessary document for this appeal. 11. That for these and other grounds which may be urged at the time of final hearing of this application 3. The assessee has raised 11 grounds of appeal but apart from the grounds on merits, the main grievance of the assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in “limine” by not condoning delay of 236 days in filing appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Perusal of impugned order indicates that since the appeal filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) was delayed by 236, and even though the application for condonation of delay was filed but Ld. CIT(A) did not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in “Limine”. 5. We observe that the assessee is residing in a rural area and engaged in trading live stocks. Return of Income is not 3 ITA No.2226/PUN/2024 filed. Assessee seems to be unaware of technicalities of filing of the appeal. 6. We therefore taking a liberal approach and being fair to both the parties and in the interest of justice deem it proper to condone the delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and restore the issue raised on merits to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication as provided u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that a proper opportunity of hearing be granted to assessee. Ld. CIT(A) may call for remand report from Ld. JAO if considered necessary. Assessee should also refrain from taking necessary adjudication. Effective grounds of appeal raised by assessee on merits are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 18th day of March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; ददिांक / Dated: 18th March, 2025. Neeta आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. धवभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, \"A\" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, \"A\" Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ा फाइल / Guard File. आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "