RAMESHWAR BABURAO BHARAD,PARBHANI V. ITO WARD-HINGOLI, HINGOLI

ITA 1591/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Rameshwar Baburao Bharad, who was assessed for unexplained cash deposits in his bank accounts over three consecutive assessment years (2014-15 to 2016-17). The Income Tax Officer (ITO) re-opened his cases under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, after receiving information about these deposits. The assessments were made under section 147 read with section 144B, treating the deposits as unexplained income under section 69 of the Act. Bharad's appeals against these assessments were initially dismissed by the NFAC due to minor delays in filing, which the NFAC found insufficiently explained. Bharad challenged this dismissal at the ITAT, which found merit in his arguments, particularly noting the medical reasons for the delays and emphasizing the need for a justice-oriented approach over a hyper-technical one.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 40404 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Raheem Shah & ANR Vs Govind Singh & Ors, Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr, Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND DESAI LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: SHUBHAM RATHI LD.
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Principle of natural justice; Competent authority
• Section: 147; 148; 250; 69

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH PUNE ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 6 BEFORE HON’BLE SMT. ASTHA CHANDRA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1590 to 1592/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2014-15 to 2016-17 Rameshwar Baburao Bharad Nandkheda, Parbhani, Maharasthra-431401 PAN: AYEPB9569R. . . . . . . . Appellant V/s The Income Tax Officer, Ward, Hingoli. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee by : Mr Shubham Rathi [‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 15/10/2024 Date of Pronouncement : 15/10/2024 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; This bunch of three appeals of the assessee impugned separate DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065633664(1), 1065635770(1) & 1065634370(1) all dt. 13/06/2024 passed by the first appellate authority [‘Ld. NFAC/ CIT(A)’ hereinafter] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which in turn arisen out of separate orders of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by the National e-Asstt Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. AO’ hereinafter] for assessment year 2014-15 to 2016-17 [‘AY’ hereinafter]; Rameshwar Baburao Bharad Vs ITO ITA No. 1590 to 1592/PUN/2024 ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 6 2. Since facts involved in this bunch of appeals and issue dealt therein are common & identical, therefore on the request of rival parties these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed-off by common & consolidated order. 3. Briefly stated common facts of these cases are that; the appellant assessee is an individual who for all three years under consideration was identified as Non-Filer by the Revenue. An information that, the assessee made huge cash deposits in his account maintained with ‘Shri Renuka Mata Multi-State Urban Co-operative. Credit Society’ was received, pursuant to which the case of the assessee for three years under consideration, after recording the reasons & obtaining prior approval from the competent authority was re-opened u/s 148 of the Act. In the event of failure on the part of the assessee to explain nature and source of such cash deposited by him, the Ld. AO treated the same as unexplained income of the assessee and brought to tax u/s 69 of the Act vide separate assessment order dt. 27/05/2023, 27/05/2023 & 09/05/2023 framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for the assessment year 2014-15 to 2016-17 respectively. Rameshwar Baburao Bharad Vs ITO ITA No. 1590 to 1592/PUN/2024 ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 6 4. By separate appeals instituted on 29/06/2023, the assessee challenged the aforestated additions & assessments before first appellate authority. Vide separate first appellate orders dt. 13/06/2024 the Ld. NFAC dismissed all three appeals of the assessee in limine as barred by limitation. 5. Aggrieved by the aforestated dismissal the assessee came in present bunch of appeals with as many as six common & argumentative grounds which beside merits collectively challenges the action of Ld. first appellate Authorities on violation of principle of natural justice and seeks to remand these matters for de-novo adjudication on merits. 6. Without touching merits of these cases, we have heard the rival parties common submission on the limited issue of dismissal in limine by the Ld. NFAC and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules 1963 perused material placed on record, considered the facts in the light of settled legal position. 7. We noted that, against the orders of assessment for AY 2014- 15 passed on 27/05/2023, for AY 2015-16 which was passed on 29/05/2023 & for AY 2016-17 passed on 09/05/2023 the Rameshwar Baburao Bharad Vs ITO ITA No. 1590 to 1592/PUN/2024 ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 6 appellant assessee filed three separate appeals before the Ld. NFAC on 29/06/2023. These appeals were admittedly filed with a small delay of 3days, 1day & 21days. Of these first two appeals were admittedly filed without computing delay & accompanying therewith a petition for condonation of delay stating therein sufficient reasons therefore. Insofar as the appeal for the AY 2016- 17 is concerned though the delay in filing was mentioned in Form No 35, the reasons behind such delay remained to be explained to the satisfaction of the Ld. NFAC. In the event, the Ld. NFAC rejected to entertain all three appeals on a technical ground of assessee’s failure to mention such delays in appeal Memo and further failure to prove the sufficient cause beyond such delay. 8. In the course of hearing, the Ld. AR solidified that the appellant did not identify & mention exact delay in Form No 35 and also failed to placing cogent material in support thereof. Adverting to medical reports / prescriptions placed on records, it was satisfactorily shown to us that, the appellant was under medical treatment which delayed filing of appeals before the first appellate authority and such delays were not only undeliberate but accidental & bonafied, which Revenue could hardly displace. Rameshwar Baburao Bharad Vs ITO ITA No. 1590 to 1592/PUN/2024 ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 6 9. The appellate authority or forum in our considered view is created by the statute to rest the dispute and not to accelerate up to higher forum. Therefore having regard to present facts and circumstances, placing reliance on recent judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in ‘Raheem Shah & ANR Vs Govind Singh & Ors’ [CIVIL APPEAL NO.4628 OF 2023], we are heedful to state that, while dealing with tax litigation, the Ld. NFAC being a quasi-judicial authority was expected to adopt justice oriented approach rather resorting to iron-cast technical one wherein the Ld. NFAC came to dismiss appeals in limine on a hyper-technical ground of that the delay was not mentioned in Form No 35. 10. After vouching sufficiency of reasons, we are satisfied that the appellant was for sufficient cause prevented from filing first appeals against the assessment orders. In views thereof the undeliberate delays of 3, 1 & 21 days respectively occurred in instituting three separate appeals against respective assessment orders before the Ld. NFAC, we after placing reliance on ‘Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ reported 398 ITR 250 (Bom) and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ reported at 167 ITR 5 (SC), in the larger interest of Rameshwar Baburao Bharad Vs ITO ITA No. 1590 to 1592/PUN/2024 ITAT-Pune Page 6 of 6 judice we condone the same as; ‘none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal.’ 11. In view hereof, without offering any comments on merits of these cases, we set-aside the impugned orders and remit these files to the Ld. NFAC with a direction to deal therewith on merits de-novo in accordance with applicable law and pass speaking orders in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. Needless to state that the Ld. NFAC shall accord three effective opportunities in each case separately to the assessee to explain his claim with such evidential material as may be necessary. The ground number 1 & 2 are accordingly stands partly allowed for statistical purposes, consequently all other grounds unnecessitated any adjudication. 12. In result, these three appeals are ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Tuesday, 15th day of October, 2024 -S/d- -S/d- ASTHA CHANDRA G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE ; दिन ांक / Dated : 15th day of October, 2024 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT Concerned. 4. The CIT(A)/NFAC Concerned. 5. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 6. ग र्डफ़ इल / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / By Order वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्य य दिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "