PRAMOD MANIKCHAND DUGAD,PUNE V. CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 27/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Pramod Manikchand Dugad, the appellant, contesting an assessment order issued by the ITO, NFAC, Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The primary contention was procedural non-compliance by the FAO, who did not provide the statutory four-week period for the assessee to respond after the disposal of objections regarding the reopening of the assessment. The Tribunal referenced the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Asian Paint Ltd. vs. DCIT, which set a precedent for such procedural requirements. The Tribunal's decision to quash the assessment order was based solely on this procedural error, rendering further examination of the case's merits unnecessary.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 396347 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Asian Paint Ltd. vs. DCIT [2009] 296 ITR 90 (Bombay - HC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH L. PATHADE
• Assessee Lawyers: SUHAS P. BORA
• Section: 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.27/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Pramod Manikchand Dugad, 28, Vasant Baug, Bibwewadi, Pune- 411037. PAN : AAIPD4558L Vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM: This appeal filed at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Pune-11 [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 27.09.2024 which is arising out of the assessment order for Assessment Year 2017-18 framed on 24.03.2022 by the ITO, NFAC, Delhi. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to ground no.1(a) stated that the assessment order framed for A.Y. 2017-18 on 24.03.2024 deserves to be quashed as Ld. Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) did not provide four weeks time to the assessee after disposal of the objection. In support of this, reliance was placed on Assessee by : Shri Suhas P. Bora Revenue by : Shri Prakash L. Pathade Date of hearing : 11.03.2025 Date of pronouncement : 30.05.2025 ITA No.27/PUN/2025 2 the judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Asian Paint Ld. vs. DCIT [2009] 296 ITR 90 (Bombay - HC). 3. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authority but had failed to convert the facts narrated by Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that the assessee filed return of income u/s 139(1) on 24.10.2017 declaring income of Rs.24,29,600/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information about the alleged deposit of cash during the demonetization period. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2021 and in reply the assessee furnished the return on 30.06.2021 declaring same income of Rs.24,29,600/-. Thereafter, the case assigned to the Faceless Unit on 11.11.2021 for disposal of assessment followed by validly serving notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee asked for reasons recorded and objected to the reopening of the case vide letter dated 01.03.2022 to which the objections were disposed of on 08.03.2022. Again on 10.03.2022 ITA No.27/PUN/2025 3 some other documents were asked by the assessee and objected for reopening. However, since the Ld. FAO has already disposed of one objection, he did not found the second objection as untenable and dispose off vide notice dated 16.03.2022. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee referred to the judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Asian Paint Ltd. (supra) wherein Hon’ble Court has held that “if the Assessing Officer does not accept the objections so filed, he shall not proceed further in the matter within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of service of the said order on objections, on the assessee. Accordingly rule is made absolute”. Examining the facts of the instant case in the light of above judgement of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Asian Paint Ld. (supra), we notice that the Ld. FAO disposed of the objection vide notice dated 16.03.2022 but he has concluded assessment proceedings on 24.03.2022 i.e. within a period less than four weeks. Therefore, since the assessment order has been framed in less than four weeks from the date of disposing of both the objections on 08.03.2022 & 16.03.2022, case of the assessee stands squarely covered by the judgement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Asian ITA No.27/PUN/2025 4 Paint Ltd. (supra) and, therefore, respectfully following the same, we are inclined to hold that the assessment proceedings carried out in the case of the assessee deserves to be quashed as the same has not been carried out in accordance with the settled judicial precedents. Since we have quashed the assessment order and allowed the legal ground, dealing with the merits of the case would be merely academic in nature. Accordingly, legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 30th day of May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 30th May, 2025. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Pune-11. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "