Kush Properties & Developers Pvt Ltd v. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax,Central Circle 2(1), Pune

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1712 OF 2017 Kush Properties & Developers Pvt Ltd..Appellant Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax,Central Circle 2(1), Pune..Respondent ................... Mr. Rohan Deshpande a/w Suyog Bhave for the Appellant Mr. Sham Walve a/w Mr. Pritesh Chatterjee for the Respondent................... CORAM : UJJAL BHUYAN & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2020. P.C.: 1.Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the appellantand Mr. Sham Walve, learned standing counsel, revenue forthe respondent. 2.This appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act,1961 ("the Act" for short) has been preferred by theappellant - assessee assailing the legality and correctness ofthe order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench "A", Pune ("Tribunal" for short) dated 17.3.2017 passed inIncome Tax Appeal No. 2658/Pun/2016 for the block period 1997-98 to 2003-04. 3.The said appeal has been dismissed by the Tribunal onthe ground of being time barred. The related condonationapplication filed by the appellant was dismissed by theTribunal by taking the view that no reasons were assigned bythe appellant for condoning the delay of 1305 days inpreferring the appeal. 4.Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us throughthe appeal and submits that appellant was pursuing hisremedy of rectification of the appellate order passed by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 154 ofthe Act and that was the reason for the delay. He furthersubmits that against the rejection of rectification application,appellant has preferred appeal before the Tribunal which iswithin time but the appeal against the appellate order of theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on merit was timebarred. He further submits that the matter may beremanded back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision afterhearing afresh the parties. 5.However, learned standing counsel, revenue supportsthe order passed by the Tribunal and submits that there is noinfirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal as the assesseefailed to explain the delay. 6.Submissions made have been considered. 7.On due consideration and taking an overall view of thematter, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if thematter is decided afresh by the Tribunal after giving dueopportunity to the appellant to explain the delay in preferringthe related appeal. 8.Ordered accordingly. 9.Needless to say, no opinion is expressed on merit andall contentions are kept open. 10. Consequently, order dated 17.3.2017 is set aside andthe matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for a freshdecision in accordance with law. 11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ UJJAL BHUYAN, J. ] Digitallysigned byRavindraRavindra M.AmberkarM.Date:Amberkar2020.01.2411:01:14+0530