SHUBHADA SANJAY SANE,MAHARASHTRA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD TWO (ONE) KOLHAPUR

ITA 1750/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shubhada Sanjay Sane, a retired employee of IDBI Bank Ltd., who appealed against the order of the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Chandigarh, concerning the assessment year 2019-20. The appellant had filed a return of income disclosing a total income of Rs.25,12,870, which was accepted without any variation under section 143(1). The appellant later sought rectification regarding the inclusion of leave encashment in taxable income, which was not accepted due to the absence of any variation between the assessed and returned income. The appeal was dismissed in limine by the Addl./JCIT(A) due to the significant delay and lack of explanation for it. The Tribunal's decision focused on the procedural aspect of the delay and the substantive issue of the lack of variation in income figures.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32541 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2024
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARSHAD S. AARADHI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1750/PUN/2024 \u000bनधा\u000fरण वष\u000f / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Shubhada Sanjay Sane, 413, D-Ward, Annapurna Apartment, Dravid Wada, Gangavesh-416002 Maharashtra PAN : ADXPS8499K Vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolhapur Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the appellant directed against the order of Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Chandigarh dated 26.06.2024 for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was an employee of IDBI Bank Ltd., got retired on 05.01.2019. During the period year relevant to assessment year under consideration, the appellant derived income under the head ‘salaries’. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2019-20 was filed on 31.08.2019 disclosing total income of Rs.25,12,870/-. The said return of income was processed u/s.143(1) vide intimation dated 16.11.2019 accepting the returned income. 3. On the receipt of the said intimation, an appeal was filed before the Addl./JCIT(A) with a delay of 667 days seeking rectification of the Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Harshad S. Aaradhi Date of hearing : 09.10.2024 Date of pronouncement : 09.10.2024 ITA No.1750/PUN/2024 2 intimation on the ground that amount of leave encashment was wrongly included in taxable income of the appellant. The rectification application filed u/s.154 was not accepted by the system in the absence of any variation between the assessed income and the returned income. The Addl/JCITI(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine by holding that the appellant had failed to file any explanation for delay. Even on merits also, the Addl/JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal by holding that in the absence of any variation between the assessed income and the returned income, no appeal lies against the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant despite due service of notice of hearing but written submissions were filed. In the written submissions, it was stated that the delay of 667 days had occurred on account of covid-19 pandemic outbreak in the country. 6. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR submits that no interference by this Tribunal is called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. I heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the material on record. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether the Addl./JCIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 667 days. In this case, the intimation u/s.143(1) was issued on 16.11.2019 admittedly served upon the appellant on the same day. The appeal was filed on 12.10.2021. The submission of the appellant that delay had occurred on account of difficulties caused to the litigants on account of covid-19 pandemic outbreak in the country is not acceptable since no explanation whatsoever was tendered by the appellant in respect of delay for the period from the date of receipt of intimation, i.e. 16.11.2019 till 25.03.2020. In the absence of any ITA No.1750/PUN/2024 3 ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’ for delay, I am of the considered opinion that the Addl/JCIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay. Even on merits, the Addl/JCIT(A) was right in holding that in the absence of any variation between the assessed income and the returned income, no appeal lies against the intimation passed u/s.143(1) of the Act. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 09th day of October, 2024. Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 09th October, 2024. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ\tेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\f / The Appellant. 2. \r\u000eयथ\f / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय \rितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "