SUYOGA VIJAY SHINDE,SATARA V. ITO, WARD-2, SATARA

ITA 1371/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals filed by the assessee, Suyoga Vijay Shinde, against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2006-07 and 2011-12. The appeals were delayed due to the sickness of the assessee, which was supported by a doctor's certificate. The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals for adjudication. The main contention was that the orders were ex-parte as the assessee could not respond due to illness, and the additions were made on a protective basis while substantive additions in the hands of other assessees had been deleted. The Tribunal noted that the additions were made on a protective basis and referred the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment in light of similar cases.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 39191 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Other Referred Cases: M/s.L.S.Developers and Lata Deshmukh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND DESAI
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD S SHINGTE
• Section: 147; 250

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1370 & 1371/PUN/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2011-12 Suyoga Vijay Shinde, Suyog Bunglow, 1/1B, Pirwadi, Gorakhpur, Satara, Maharashtra – 415001. PAN: BCOPS6660K V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Satara. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Pramod S Shingte – AR Revenue by Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 13/02/2025 Date of pronouncement 21/02/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM: These two appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld.Commissioner of Income ITA Nos.1370 & 1371/PUN/2024 [A] 2 Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated 21.09.2023 and 12.09.2023 for A.Y.2006-07 and 2011-12 respectively. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 204 and 213 days in filing of the appeal in ITA No.1370/PUN/2024 and ITA No.1371/PUN/2024 respectively. Common reason for the delay as stated in the Affidavit is on account of sickness of the assessee. A certificate from Doctor has been attached to the Affidavit. Considering the fact that assessee would not have gained by delaying filing of the appeal, we, in the interest of justice condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset, ld.Counsel for the assessee commonly argued for both the appeals that the impugned orders are ex-parte qua assessee, as the assessee could not respond to the notice of hearing on account of her sickness. He also submitted the ITA Nos.1370 & 1371/PUN/2024 [A] 3 ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the addition in absence of any submission/documents filed by the assessee. He further prayed that an opportunity may be granted by restoring the issue and merits to ld.Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication. Ld.AR also submitted that the addition made in the hands of assessee are on protective basis and the substantive additions made in the hands of other assessees’ have been deleted. In support, reference was made to the decision of this Tribunal in case of other assessees’ on other documents placed in the paper book running into 102 pages. 4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed on record. WE notice that the additions made in the hands of assessee for the impugned assessment years are on protective basis. On the strength of decision of Co-ordiate Bench’s in the case of other assessee’s M/s.L.S.Developers and Lata Deshmukh ITA Nos.1370 & 1371/PUN/2024 [A] 4 it is contended that the additions on substantive basis stands deleted and therefore, no addition should sustain in the hands of assessee. 5. We, however, observing that the order of the Assessing Officer is best judgment assessment u/s.144 r.w.s 147 of the Act and that of ld.CIT(A) is ea-parte qua assessee. Even the appeal of the assessee before this Tribunal was also delayed, but the same has been condoned by us. on medical grounds. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and claim of the assessee that substantive additions in the hands of other assessees’ have been deleted, we deem it appropriate to restore all the issues raised on merits in both these appeals to the file of ld.Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to carry out denovo adjudication considering the decisions of Co-ordinate Benches in the case of other assessees’ where substantive additions have been ITA Nos.1370 & 1371/PUN/2024 [A] 5 made. Needless to mention that ld.Jurisdictional the Assessing Officer(in short “ld.JAO”) shall provide reasonable opportunity to assessee and assessee is directed to remain vigilant and furnish all necessary details deemed appropriate before ld.JAO in support of its grounds raised on merits. Assessee is also directed to provide correct and active Email-id and Mobile Number on ITBA Portal. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised on merits in ITA No.1370/PUN/2024 and ITA No.1371/PUN/2024 are allowed for statistical purpose. 6. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (DR. MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 21st Feb, 2025/ SGR* ITA Nos.1370 & 1371/PUN/2024 [A] 6 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. "