UMED SINGH,NEW DELHI V. JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 14(1), PUNE, RANGE CODE 58, DGIT (INVESTIGATION), PUNE

ITA 7/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Umed Singh, an individual operating a security agency, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2020-21. The primary contention arose from the CPC's rectification of the assessee's income, which included a significant addition due to the disallowance of employees' contributions to EPF and ESIC on account of delayed payment. Initially, the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's absence, without considering the merits. The Tribunal found this dismissal inappropriate as it did not address the grounds raised by the assessee and thus remanded the case back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a comprehensive review on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 783026 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINOD PAWAR VIRTUAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HEMANT JAIN VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.7/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Umed Singh, GSO-1, (CB) MT-8, Room No.747, Min. of Defenvr, Sena Bhava, New Delhi- 110010. PAN : BAMPS1578L Vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward-14(1), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.09.2023 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the Assessee by : Shri Hemant Jain (Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Vinod Pawar (Virtual) Date of hearing : 28.10.2025 Date of pronouncement : 31.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.7/PUN/2025 2 prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in operating a security agency. The assessee filed his return of income declaring taxable income of Rs.33,15,260/-. The said return was processed by CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act and thereafter on the request of assessee u/s 154 rectified intimation was issued on 10.06.2022 by processing the taxable income at Rs.60,02,180/-. The above processed income includes addition of Rs.26,86,920/- towards disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act of employees’ contribution of EPF and ESIC on account of delayed payment. 4. Being aggrieved with above action of the CPC, an appeal was preferred before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without going into merits of the case dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 5. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.7/PUN/2025 3 by the assessee and also perused the case laws furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that CPC has disallowed the belated payment of employees’ PF and ESIC contribution u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. We further find that the assessee failed to appear before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and therefore, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC without going into merits of the case dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. In this regard, we find that in the light of section 250(6) of the Act, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was required to decide each and every ground raised by the assessee before him. However, in the instant case, we find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not decided any of the ground raised by the assessee and simply dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case as well as with the consent of both the parties, we set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to him with a direction to decide the appeal afresh on merits of the case as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to produce relevant documents/evidences/submission, if any, to Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.7/PUN/2025 4 substantiate the grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. 7. Since we have remanded the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the appeal afresh on merits of the case as per fact and law, we do not intend to decide grounds raised by the assessee before us and they remained unadjudicated and the assessee is free to raise all such grounds before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 31st day of October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 31st October, 2025. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr.CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "