RAIGAD DARSHAN NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE V. ITO WARD 8(3), PUNE

ITA 532/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Raigad Darshan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, the appellant, contesting a penalty of Rs. 33,46,386 levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for alleged misreporting of income. The penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal due to a delay of 176 days in filing. The appellant argued that the delay was genuine and caused by the non-receipt of the order, and requested a condonation of the delay and a rehearing. The Departmental Representative opposed this request. The Tribunal, considering the larger interest of justice, condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits after a proper hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314608 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GANESH B BUDRUK
• Assessee Lawyers: MISS KIMYA KUDVA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice

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. 532/PUN/2025 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Raigad Darshan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Krishna Vatika, Jyotiba Nagar, Surve No. 77/1/2/1 Kalewadi, Kalewadi B.O-411017 Maharashtra PAN-AACAR7156B Vs ITO Ward 8(3), Pune Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Miss Kimya Kudva Revenue by : Shri Ganesh B Budruk- Additional CIT Date of hearing : 28.04.2025 Date of pronouncement : 05.05.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of NFAC u/s 250 of the Act, dated 30.12.2024. Before diverting to the grounds raised on merits we with the assistance of both the side observe that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation by 176 days. Ld. counsel for the assessee requested for condoning the delay and provide one more opportunity of hearing before Ld. CIT(A). Ld DR opposed the request. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 2 ITA No. 532/PUN/2025 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty u/s 270A of the ITA, 1961 levied by learned AO amounting to Rs 33,46,386/- (i.e. 200% of tax payable) for misreporting of income. Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the facts that there is no any misreporting of income. 2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting appellant's appeal on account of delay of 176 days in filling appeal memo. Learned AO ought to have condoned the genuine delay caused due to non-receipt of order by the appellant. 3. Learned CIT(A) ought to have granted an appropriate opportunity of being heard to the appellant for making requisite submissions in response to penalty notice considering the principle of natural justice. The appellant intends to make all the requisite submissions along with related documentary evidence. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts by upholding penalty u/s 270A of the ITA, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the learned AO has not recorded any satisfaction on whether the penalty is for \"under-reporting of income\" or \"misreporting of income\". 5. Appellant contends that levying penalty u/s 270A of the ITA, 1961 amounting to Rs. 33,46,386/- for misreporting of income on disallowance of deduction u/s 80P of the ITA, 1961; is totally incorrect. The learned AO ought to have appreciated that appellant has not underreported any income and is eligible for deduction u/s 80P of the ITA, 1961 as per provisions of law. 6. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/clarify/explain/modify/ enhance/delete any or all of the grounds of appeal, and to seek any just and fair relief. 3. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. 4. We observe that the assessee aggrieved with the order u/s 270 of the Act dated 13.02.2023 levying penalty of Rs. 33,46,386/- filed the appeal to Ld. CIT(A) on 07.09.2023 which 3 ITA No. 532/PUN/2025 was delayed by 176 days. Though the assessee filed application alongwith affidavit providing the reasons given for the said delay. Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. We however considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking liberal approach in the larger interest of justice condone the delay of 176 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A). However as Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in Limine we remit back the issue on merits challenging the penalty levied u/s 270A back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for deciding the said issue after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and then pass a speaking order. 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 are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 05th day of May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दििांक / Dated: 05th May, 2025. Neeta आिेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधषि / 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, 4 ITA No. 532/PUN/2025 पुणे / DR, ITAT, \"B\" Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ा फाइल / Guard File. आिेशािुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // वररष्ठ धिजी सधचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune "