PLEASURE AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED (AS A SUCCESSOR - IN INTEREST OF ERSTWHILE VISHWARAJA PROPERTIES AND CONSULTANCIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE V. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE

ITA 943/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Pleasure Agro Private Limited, which appealed against the reassessment orders for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16 issued by the DCIT, Circle 8, Pune. The appeals were initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-compliance with notices. The main legal contention raised by the appellant was that the reassessment orders were issued in the name of a non-existing entity, as the company had been amalgamated with another entity prior to the reassessment. The Tribunal noted the procedural lapses and the substantive legal issue regarding the entity in whose name the reassessment was made, leading to the decision to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775465 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Rupmata Multistate Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd Vs ITO Ward- 1, Latur, Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd Vs ACIT(1)(1), Pune, Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Laxman Das Khandelwal, ITO Exemptions Ward-1 vs S.M. Batha Education Trust, Vishnu Subhash Agarwal vs ITO, Ward 6(1), Pune, Transway Wine Pvt Ltd vs PCIT-1, Kolkatta, DCIT Circle 1(1), Pune Vs Barclays Global Service Center Pvt Ltd
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHASHANK OJHA
• Assessee Lawyers: DIGAMBAR SURWASE
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Co-operative Credit Society

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.943 and 944/PUN/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15 and 2015-16 Pleasure Agro Private Limited, (As a Successor in interest of erstwhile Vishwaraja Properties and Consultancies Private Limited, Unit 404, Rainbow Apartments, S.No.110/11/16, Baner Road, Near Dhande Path Lab, Baner, Pune 411 045, Maharashtra PAN : AACCV8086C Vs. DCIT, Circle 8, Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned two appeals at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 are directed against the separate orders dated 20.12.2024 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 Orders dated 30.05.2023 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s147 of the Act. 2. Registry has informed that there is delay of 39 days in preferring the instant appeals before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed applications for condonation of delay. Appellant by : Shri Digambar Surwase Respondent by : Shri Shashank Ojha Date of hearing : 18.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 08.09.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.943 and 944/PUN/2025 Pleasure Agro Private Limited 2 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the condonation applications, we are satisfied that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeals within the stipulated time. We note that the assessee has not gained from filing the appeals with a delay. We therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court 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) condone the delay of 39 days in filing of the instant appeals before this Tribunal. 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that admittedly the impugned orders are exparte because assessee could not appear before ld.CIT(A). He however submitted that assessee deserves to succeed on the legal ground because the re-assessment orders u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act for A.yrs. 2014-15 and 2015-16 have been framed in the non-existing entity even when the Assessing Officer has himself mentioned in the assessment order that the assessee company has been amalgamated with Pleasure Agro Private Limited. In support of its contention, ld. Counsel has relied on following decisions : 1. Rupmata Multistate Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd Vs ITO Ward- 1, Latur, ITA No 320/PUN/2024 (Pune Tribunal). 2. Capgemini Technology Services India Ltd Vs ACIT(1)(1), Pune, ITA No 1947/PUN/2024 (Pune Tribunal) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Laxman Das Khandelwal (2019) 108 Taxman.com 183(SC). Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.943 and 944/PUN/2025 Pleasure Agro Private Limited 3 4. ITO Exemptions Ward-1 vs S.M. Batha Education Trust, ITA No 2908/PUN/2016 (Pune Tribunal) 5. Vishnu Subhash Agarwal vs ITO, Ward 6(1), Pune, ITA No 2881/PUN/2024 (Pune Tribunal) 6. Transway Wine Pvt Ltd vs PCIT-1, Kolkatta, WPO No 968 of 2021 (Calcutta High Court). 7. DCIT Circle 1(1), Pune Vs Barclays Global Service Center Pvt Ltd, ITA No 46/PUN/2021 (Pune Tribunal) 5. On the other hand, ld. DR failed to controvert the contention made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and merely supported the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessee is a Private Limited Company and the assessment orders for A.Y. 2014-15 and 2015-16 have been farmed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 on 30.05.2023. Assessee has been previously assessed u/s.143(3) of the Act for both the assessment years and against the returned income of Rs.46,46,150/- and Rs.2,57,97,910/- for A.Yrs. 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. Income have been assessed u/s.143(3) on 17.10.2016 and 01.12.2017 at Rs.97,54,900/- and Rs.3,25,20,920/-. The additions made in the assessments framed us/.143(3) have been challenged by the assessee before the Appellate Authority. In the appellate proceedings for A.Y. 2014-15 and A.Y. 2015-16, inspite of sufficient notices issued by ld.CIT(A) assessee failed to comply. In the impugned orders, reference has been given to seven notices which remained to be complied. In absence of any specific submissions and details for grounds of appeal raised before ld.CIT(A) there was no option left before the ld.CIT(A) except to dismiss the appeals Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.943 and 944/PUN/2025 Pleasure Agro Private Limited 4 and he accordingly placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another reported in 118 ITR 461 and other decisions dismissed the assessee’s appeals for both the impugned years. 7. Assessee preferred appeals before this Tribunal and during the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has referred to various details pleading that the assessment orders have been framed in the name of non-existing entity and therefore the same deserves to be quashed as being null and void ab-initio. We however notice that the details filed by the assessee before this Tribunal were never placed before ld.CIT(A) and there was no occasion for ld.CIT(A) to examine these details. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to remit back all the legal issues as well as issued raised on merit in the instant appeals for necessary adjudication and to be decided in accordance with law as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act and also take note of the settled judicial precedents as referred and relied before this Tribunal. If required, ld.CIT(A) may call for remand report from the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for the verification of the submissions made by the assessee about the amalgamation of the assessee company with Pleasure Agro Private Limited. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned orders for both the assessment years are accordingly set aside. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.943 and 944/PUN/2025 Pleasure Agro Private Limited 5 8. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 08th day of September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 08th September 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, “B” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” 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 "