PRISTINE WOMENS HOSPITAL, KOLHAPUR,KOLHAPUR V. ACIT, CC-KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

ITA 848/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Pristine Womens Hospital appealing against penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 2014-15 and 2016-17. The penalties were initially imposed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A). The hospital sought to settle the dispute under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, but their application was rejected. Due to an inaccessible email, they were unaware of the CIT(A)'s orders until after the deadline for filing appeals. The Tribunal found the delay in filing the appeals to be unintentional and granted a remand for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711838 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others, Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT BOBDE
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHOR B PHADKE
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \"बी\" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"B\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.847-848/PUN/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2016-2017 & 2014-15 Pristine Womens Hospital, 395/2, E Ward Square 9 Building, Next to Basant- Bahar Talkies Assembly Road, Kolhapur-416001 Maharashtra PAN-AACAP7626A Vs ACIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishor B Phadke Revenue by : Shri Amit Bobde-CIT Date of hearing : 17.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 24.07.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : These appeals at the instance of assessee are directed against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A) dated 11.09.2024 & 28.08.2024 pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17 & A.Y. 2014-15 respectively which in turn are arising out of penalty orders framed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) evenly dated 15.09.2021. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 117 days in filing of both the appeals. Reason for delay has been mentioned in the affidavit along with the condonation Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.847&848/PUN/2025 application given by the member assessee Association of Persons (AOP). On going through the contents of the application for condonation of delay, we observe that the assessee after passing of the penalty orders filed the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and then during the pendency of appellant proceedings the assessee filed the application under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 for settling the tax dispute which in this case is penalty for both the impugned assessment years. However the Income Tax Department rejected the assessee’s application under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. But in the mean time the impugned orders were passed and assessee was unaware because the E-mail address on which the impugned orders were sent, could not be accessed by the concerned person and due to this reason there was a delay in filing the appeal. Considering the reasonable cause and also taking a liberal approach in the interest of justice and also observing that the delay is not intentional, we respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others(1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) (Supreme Court) & the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382) condone the delay of 117 days occurred in filing of the instant two appeals and admit the same for adjudication. 3. The sole greviance in both these appeals is against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs. 10,21,260/- and Rs. 7,95,078/- for A.Y. 2016-17 and A.Y. 2014-15 respectively. 4. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in absence of any appearance before Ld. CIT(A) on the given dates of hearing the appeals of the assessee has been Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.847&848/PUN/2025 dismissed by Ld. CIT(A). Prayer made for providing one more opportunity of hearing before Ld. CIT(A). 5. Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of lower authorities. 6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Assessee is aggrieved with the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2016-17 and 2014-15. Admittedly various notices of hearing were given by Ld. CIT(A). Assessee nor in person nor through authorized representative filed any written submission or adjournment application before Ld. CIT(A). In the affidavit filed by the key person of the assessee it is stated that reason for non appearance was that they were trying to settle the tax dispute under Vivid se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 but finally failed . On the other hand e-mails sent by Ld. CIT(A) fixing the date of hearing went unnoticed by the staff. We find that the non appearance by the assessee is not intentional and assessee would not have been benefitted by not appearing before Ld. CIT(A). We therefore taking a justice oriented approach and in the larger interest of justice deem it appropriate to remit all the issues raised in the instant appeal against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for both the years in appeal, back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication on merits and then decide in accordance with law as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both the appeals for both the A.Y. 2014-15 and 2016-17 are allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.847&848/PUN/2025 7. In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 24th day of July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दििांक / Dated: 24th July, 2025. Neeta आिेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / 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, \"बी\" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, \"B\" Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ा फाइल / Guard File. आिेशािुसार / BY ORDER, वररष्ठ धिजी सधचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com "