Kush Properties & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 2(1), Pune
[Citation -2020-LL-0121-53]

Citation 2020-LL-0121-53
Appellant Name Kush Properties & Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Respondent Name The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 2(1), Pune
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 21/01/2020
Assessment Year 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags rejection of rectification application • condonation of delay
Bot Summary: The said appeal has been dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of being time barred. The related condonation application filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Tribunal by taking the view that no reasons were assigned by the appellant for condoning the delay of 1305 days in preferring the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the appeal and submits that appellant was pursuing his remedy of rectification of the appellate order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 154 of the Act and that was the reason for the delay. He further submits that against the rejection of rectification application, appellant has preferred appeal before the Tribunal which is within time but the appeal against the appellate order of the Commissioner of Income Tax on merit was time barred. Learned standing counsel, revenue supports the order passed by the Tribunal and submits that there is no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal as the assessee failed to explain the delay. On due consideration and taking an overall view of the matter, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if the matter is decided afresh by the Tribunal after giving due opportunity to the appellant to explain the delay in preferring the related appeal. Order dated 17.3.2017 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision in accordance with law.


28. os itxa 1712-17.doc R.M. AMBERKAR (Private Secretary) IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1712 OF 2017 Kush Properties & Developers Pvt Ltd .. Appellant Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(1), Pune .. Respondent Mr. Rohan Deshpande a/w Suyog Bhave for Appellant Mr. Sham Walve a/w Mr. Pritesh Chatterjee for Respondent CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2020. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Sham Walve, learned standing counsel, revenue for respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) has been preferred by appellant - assessee assailing legality and correctness of order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench "A", Pune ("Tribunal" for short) dated 17.3.2017 passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 2658/Pun/2016 for block period 1 of 4 28. os itxa 1712-17.doc 1997-98 to 2003-04. 3. said appeal has been dismissed by Tribunal on ground of being time barred. related condonation application filed by appellant was dismissed by Tribunal by taking view that no reasons were assigned by appellant for condoning delay of 1305 days in preferring appeal. 4. Learned counsel for appellant has taken us through appeal and submits that appellant was pursuing his remedy of rectification of appellate order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 154 of Act and that was reason for delay. He further submits that against rejection of rectification application, appellant has preferred appeal before Tribunal which is within time but appeal against appellate order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on merit was time barred. He further submits that matter may be remanded back to Tribunal for fresh decision after hearing afresh parties. 2 of 4 28. os itxa 1712-17.doc 5. However, learned standing counsel, revenue supports order passed by Tribunal and submits that there is no infirmity in view taken by Tribunal as assessee failed to explain delay. 6. Submissions made have been considered. 7. On due consideration and taking overall view of matter, we feel that it would meet ends of justice if matter is decided afresh by Tribunal after giving due opportunity to appellant to explain delay in preferring related appeal. 8. Ordered accordingly. 9. Needless to say, no opinion is expressed on merit and all contentions are kept open. 10. Consequently, order dated 17.3.2017 is set aside and matter is remanded back to Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. 3 of 4 28. os itxa 1712-17.doc 11. appeal is accordingly disposed of. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ] Digitally signed by Ravindra Ravindra M. Amberkar M. Date: Amberkar 2020.01.24 11:01:14 +0530 4 of 4 Kush Properties & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 2(1), Pune
Report Error