NITIN PRABHAKAR VAIDYA,NAGPUR V. ITO 1(5), NAGPUR

ITA 47/NAG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Nitin Prabhakar Vaidya, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal was initially delayed by 366 days due to various personal and administrative hardships, including the COVID-19 pandemic and health issues in the assessee's family. The tribunal considered these factors and condoned the delay in filing the appeal, imposing a nominal penalty. On the merits, the tribunal noted that the assessee had not provided sufficient documentary evidence to support his claims during the assessment proceedings but decided to remand the case for further examination, considering the exceptional circumstances under which the original assessment was made.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669288 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURJIT KUMAR SAHA; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: MADHURI JOSHI; LD
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No. 47/NAG/2024 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Nitin Prabhakar Vaidya, Plot No.4, Corporation Colony, North Ambazari Road, Near Gandhinagar Square, Nagpur. PAN : AASPV 2335 F vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Nagpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Madhuri Joshi, Ld.CA For Revenue : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Ld.Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 24.06.2025 ORDER This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29/11/2023 impugned herein passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [in short, “Ld.Commissioner”] u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) for the Assessment Year (for short, “AY”) 2013-14. 2 ITA.No.47/NAG/2024 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 366 days in filing of the instant appeal, on which the assessee has claimed as under:– “1. That the petitioner had filed his return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 28.07.2013. Thereafter, the assessment was reopened under section 147 and concluded ex parte under section 144 on 28.09.2021. 2. The petitioner received the said order during the COVID-19 pandemic period, which was marked by administrative disruption, personal hardship. and lack of legal guidance, especially due to remote operations and health risks. 3. The petitioner is a small individual taxpayer with no regular legal representation. He was unaware of the appellate procedures, timelines, and rights, and he also suffered from stress and financial hardship owing to the fraud committed by Wasankar Group, where his investment was lost. 4. That during the relevant period, the assessee's father suffered a paralytic attack, and the assessee, being his sole caretaker, was under considerable personal and emotional distress. The pressing medical responsibilities. combined with the absence of professional assistance, prevented the assessee from seeking timely legal advice or initiating the appellate proceedings. These circumstances, though unfortunate, were entirely beyond the assessee's control and contributed to the delay in filing the appeal. 5. Due to these bona fide circumstances, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of 30 days. However, the appeal was eventually filed on 15.10.2022 with a delay of 352 days. 6. It is submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but was caused due to reasonable and justifiable reasons beyond the petitioner's control. 7. It is also submitted that the petitioner has a strong prima facie case on merits and the addition of ₹9,00,000 as \"income from other sources\" is based on incorrect assumptions and not on any real receipt or accrual. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases has held that courts and authorities should adopt a liberal approach while condoning delay if the cause is reasonable and genuine and substantial justice is at stake. 9. The assessee has acted in a bona fide manner and has not derived any undue advantage from the delay in filing the appeal. The delay was purely due to circumstances beyond her control and was not attributable to any contumacious or deliberate conduct. 10. It is submitted the assessee was taken by surprise upon receiving the dismissal order. The rejection of her appeal, without due consideration of the return of income and the merits of her case, has caused significant distress. 11. Considering the exceptional circumstances, we sincerely request your kind consideration to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The delay was unforeseen, 3 ITA.No.47/NAG/2024 unintentional and unavoidable, and we assure you that all future compliance will be adhered to promptly.” 3. On the contrary, ld.DR refuted the claim of the assessee qua condonation of delay. 4. Having perused the reasons stated by the assessee, for not filing the appeal within the time, appears to be bonafide, genuine and unintentional, but unconvincing, however, in the interest of justice, delay is condoned but subject to deposit of ` 1,100/– (Rupees Eleven Hundred Only) in Revenue Department under “other heads” within 15 days from the date of this order. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, this Court observe from the assessment order that since the assessee has not submitted any documents or explanation for any of the statutory letters issued in various dates as discussed on the assessment order, the reply of the assessee could not be verified and, therefore, the Assessing Officer in the constrained circumstances, as the assessment was getting time barred on 30/09/2021, passed the assessment order on dated 28/09/2021 and made an addition of ` 9,00,000/– simply on the basis of information available with the Department that the assessee had made investment with Wasankar Health Management, Nagpur and received interest amount of ` 9,00,000/– during the A.Y. 2013–14. 6. On the contrary, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee vide its letter dated 24/09/2021 as it appears in para 3 of the assessment order has submitted that the 4 ITA.No.47/NAG/2024 assessee has invested ` 6,00,000/– with Wasankar Group in various investment plans in the F .Y. 2009–10 & 2010–-11, which was promised to grow very high rate, but somehow Wasankar Group refused to pay principle as well as return as promised. 7. Having considered the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the claims of the parties, this Court observe that though the assessee before the Assessing Officer has filed written submissions/reply, however, not substantiated the same with documentary evidence and, therefore consider the fact that the assessee has filed certain documents, such as, bank statement etc. which appears to be paramount for proper adjudication of the case and even otherwise assessment proceedings were carried out during Covid–19 period when the entire nation was on hold and thus, this Court, for proper and just decision of case and substantial justice, is inclined to remand the instant case to the file of the A.O. Thus, it is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24.06.2025. /- Sd/- (Narender Kumar Choudhry) Judicial Member 5 ITA.No.47/NAG/2024 vr/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Nagpur concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. 5. Guard File. By Order //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Nagpur Bench. "