RAHUL SUBHASH NAIK,PUNE V. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NFAC, PUNE

ITA 1478/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rahul Subhash Naik, the appellant, contesting a penalty order under section 271AAC(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2018-19. The penalty was initially levied due to the appellant's failure to appear during the penalty proceedings, resulting in a penalty of Rs. 70,80,150. The appellant's appeal to the CIT(A) was also marked by non-appearance. The Tribunal noted the procedural lapses and the change of the appellant's tax consultant, which led to the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712424 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH SRIVASTVA
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHUTOSH DHOOT
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause

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 No.1478/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rahul Subhash Naik 155 Guruwar Peth, Pune - 411042, Maharashtra PAN: ABYPN8324M Vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 31.03.2024 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 Penalty Order dated 05.02.2022 passed u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act. 2. Registry has informed that appeal before this Tribunal is time barred by limitation by 371 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay stating as follows : “1. I say that, order u/s 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 [\"the Act\"] dated 31.03.2024 for A.Y. 2018 2019 was served on the email ID nilesh [e-mail] on 31.03.2024 and, accordingly the last day for filing an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT was 30.05.2024. Appellant by : Shri Ashutosh Dhoot (virtual) Respondent by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date of hearing : 16.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 28.07.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1478/PUN/2025 Rahul Subhash Naik 2 However, for the reasons narrated herein, the appeal is being filed on 06.06.2025. As such, there is a delay of 372 days (three hundred and seventy-two days) in filing of the appeal. 2. I say that, hearing notices and the appeal order were served on the aforesaid email ID. The said email ID is of my previous tax consultant Mr. Nilesh Koparde. However, for complying with the income tax and other taxation requirements from AY 2024-25, I changed my tax consultant and appointed CA Puneet Agrawal [Mr. Agrawal'] for the same. 3. I say that, on the income tax portal email ID of my old tax consultant was remained to be changed, consequently the order was served on his email and he did not inform me about the same therefore, I was completely unaware about passing of such appellate order. 4. I say that, it is only on 15.05.2025 issue letter was served by Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(3), Pune, for recovery of demand on email ID of my old tax consultant, and then on that day he informed me that the recovery of demand has been initiated against me. I immediately contacted Mr. Agrawal for the same and after logging in the income tax portal, it is seen that an appellate order had already been passed against me on 31.03.2024. Mr. Agrawal suggested that an appeal can be filed with a request for condonation of delay before the Hon'ble ITAT against the said order. 5. I say that, I immediately instructed him to file an appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT against the aforesaid CIT(A) order but the Counsel to whom we wanted to appoint for representing the present case before the Hon'ble ITAT, had lost his grandfather on 14.05.2025 and therefore, he was not available in the office for almost 15 days and it is only after he joined back to the office we handed over him the documents with a request to file an appeal. 6. I say that it is only thereafter, the appeal is being filed on 06.06.2025 with a delay of 372 days (three hundred and seventy- two days) in filing the appeal. 7. I say that, it was only due to this bona fide and honest lapse that the filing of this appeal got delayed. 8. I say that, in the circumstances, the delay was not due to any negligence or carelessness on my part. 3. After hearing both the sides and going through the averments made in the affidavit by the assessee, we find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time limit. Having regard to the facts of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1478/PUN/2025 Rahul Subhash Naik 3 the instant case, we condone the delay of 371 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication in light of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme 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). 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the instant appeal is against the levy of penalty u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act. Appeal on quantum addition is still pending before ld.CIT(A). He further submitted that during the penalty proceedings, assessee failed to appear before ld.AO and even before ld.CIT(A) assessee could not file any written submissions in support of its grounds of appeal. Therefore, prayer made to restore the matter back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld. Departmental Representative did not oppose the request. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and assessment for A.Y. 2018-19 concluded on 13.04.2021 by the ld. AO assessing income at Rs.11,87,07,280/-. Penalty proceedings u/s.271AAC(1) were initiated but assessee failed to appear resulting into levy of penalty at Rs.70,80,150/-. Assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) but then could not appear on the given dates of hearing. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee who is a stamp vendor has been fastened with the huge addition by ld. AO and the appeal against the quantum addition is still pending before ld.CIT(A). Considering these facts and also taking note that during the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1478/PUN/2025 Rahul Subhash Naik 4 impugned proceedings also assessee failed to appear before ld.CIT(A), we therefore deem it proper to afford one more opportunity to the assessee. In view thereof, without dwelling into the merits of the case, we restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A). Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is at liberty to adduce all the required submissions/evidences before ld.CIT(A) to substantiate its case. Assessee is directed to update email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 28th day of July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 28th July, 2025. Satish Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1478/PUN/2025 Rahul Subhash Naik 5 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 "