RAMA CHANDRA JADHAV,PUNE V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(2), PUNE

ITA 2076/PUN/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Rama Chandar Jadhav against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning a penalty under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issues revolved around the imposition of penalties for underreporting and misreporting of income, procedural lapses in the show cause notice and penalty order, and the conduct of proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic, which the assessee argued violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding the procedural lapses and the impact of the pandemic on the fairness of the proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 30128 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND DESAI
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPA KHARE
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

" ।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.2076/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rama Chandar Jadhav, A/p-Ahmadabad, Tal-Shirur, Dist-Pune – 412218. PAN: V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(2), Pune. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Smt.Deepa Khare – AR Revenue by Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 18/11/2024 Date of pronouncement 25/11/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC] u/sec.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; dated 22.08.2024 for the A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The ID CIT(A) erred in facts and on law in levying the penalty u/s 270A under reporting misreporting of income. 2. The Id CIT(A) erred in facts and on law in confirming penalty u/s 270A in absence of specific limb in the show cause notice dated 26.12.2019 under which the Penalty u/s 270A is to be levied. ITA No.2076/PUN/2024 2 3. The Id CIT(A) erred in facts and on law in confirming penalty u/s 270A in absence of specific limb in the Penalty order dated 19/01/2022 under which the penalty u/s 270A is to be levied. 4. The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in failing to consider that the entire penalty proceedings were conducted and concluded during the covid -19 pandemic which is in contravention to the principles of natural justice. 5. The assesse craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any of the ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. The ld.AR submitted that this is an appeal against the penalty order under section 270A of the Act. 2.1 The ld.AR invited our attention to the facts of the case as under : “The Assessee is a 10th Standard Graduate and studied ITI Motor Mechanic Course after graduating. The Assessee, in order to support his family, at a young age, took up a job at “The Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd.” on 01/05/2009 with a starting salary of Rs.4,500/- per month. The Assessee had been working sincerely for 7 years when he along with his co-workers were forcibly made to take Voluntary Retirement on 12.08.2016. The Assessee got to know of Income Tax only in F.Y.2016-17 when the management of the company gave all the employees compensation based on years of service and an accountant in the company informed them that they would get refund of tax deducted at source upon filing of income tax. ITA No.2076/PUN/2024 3 The original return of income of the Assessee for A.Y.2017-18 was filed on 02.07.2017 by claiming relief under chapter VI-A and u/s.89(1) declaring income at Rs.13,97,940/-. However, the Form 10E was not submitted along with the return of income in accordance with Rule 21AA.” Submission of ld.DR : 3. Ld.Departmental Representative for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A). Findings & Analysis : 4. We heave heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of Delay of 262 days before ld.CIT(A). It is observed that Assessee had filed elaborate explanation for the said delay. The said explanation has been reproduced by ld.CIT(A) in the order. We have studied the condonation petition. We are convinced that there were sufficient reason for not filing the appeal in time. We are convinced that there was no malafide intention. The substantial justice is more important. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the ld.CIT(A) appeal to condone the delay. Accordingly, order of the ld.CIT(A) is set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. ITA No.2076/PUN/2024 4 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th November, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 25th Nov, 2024/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. "