RAHUL RAMCHANDRA PAWALE,PUNE V. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD-3(3), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 2298/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Rahul Ramchandra Pawale, the appellant, who contested the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, under sections 144 and 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dispute arose from an ex-parte assessment where the total sale consideration of Rs. 2,18,10,000 from the sale of immovable property was added to the assessee's income. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 86 days in filing, attributed to the assessee's hospitalization. The Tribunal found the delay reasonable and remanded the case for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to present his case and evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 46799 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHARAD A VAZE
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 205

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 MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2298/PUN/2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Rahul Ramchandra Pawale, S No 44, Azad Wadi, Badal Chawl, Kothrud, Pune-411 029 Maharashtra PAN-BFYPP1113H Vs ITO Ward-3(3), Pune Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sharad A Vaze Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT Date of hearing : 10.02.2025 Date of pronouncement : 11.04.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by the NFAC, Delhi u/s 144 rws 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961 which is arising out of order u/s 147 rws 144 dated 17.01.2024 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1.On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (A) -NFAC Delhi, is not justified in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay in filing the appeal, where per Hon'ble Supreme Court condonation is a rule and rejection is an exception. The fling off appeal was delayed for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee. 2 ITA No.2298/PUN/2024 The appeal before CT(A) be restored by setting aside his order dt 15/09/2024 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any of the grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal. 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to ground No. 1 of the appeal stated that Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay in filing the appeal which was on account of medical reasons and therefore prayed for condoning the delay and providing an opportunity to go before Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) as the assessment year was also passed ex-parte and total sale consideration from sale of immovable property has been added in the hands of assessee. 4. On the other hand Ld. DR supported the orders of both the lower authorities. 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Assessee is an individual and did not furnish any return of income. Based on the information about sale of immovable property by the assessee and receiving sale consideration of Rs. 2,18,10,000/-, assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny by way of issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. As there was no response from the assessee’s side to various statutory notices issued by the AO., Ld. AO made addition for total sale consideration of Rs. 2,18,10,000/- received by the assessee. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but there was delay of 86 days. Assessee with the support of the evidence has demonstrated before us that the assessee was hospitalized in the month of January, 2024 and did not receive 3 ITA No.2298/PUN/2024 the income tax notices from time to time. We find this to be a reasonable cause and accordingly condone the delay of 86 days in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) . Ideally the matter needs to be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A), but the assessee has furnished various details in the Paper Book running into 205 pages to demonstrate that the assessee has a Prime-Facie case to plead before the Assessing Officer (A.O.) against the impugned addition and also furnish the details to prove that Land sold is an agricultural land and the share of assessee is also less than the share considered by the Assessing Officer (AO). We therefore in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties deem it proper to remand the issue raised on merits to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for de-novo adjudication to be carried out after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee and then decide in accordance with law. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournment unless required for reasonable cause. Finding of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 11th day of April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दििांक / Dated: 11th April, 2025. Neeta आिेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 4 ITA No.2298/PUN/2024 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 "