Ambarwadikar Infrastructure Limited Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Delay condoned despite huge additions & penalty: ITAT Pune restores both quantum and penalty appeals
Pune ITAT set aside the orders of the CIT(A), NFAC which had dismissed both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal solely on the ground of delay, and restored both matters for adjudication on merits.
The Assessee-company had filed its original return declaring Nil income with a loss of ₹2.04 crore. In reassessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B, the AO determined income at ₹26.45 crore, making major additions towards unsecured loans (₹23.40 crore), section 43CA adjustment (₹2.08 crore) and unexplained investment in immovable property (₹3.01 crore), followed by penalty of ₹1.24 crore u/s 271(1)(c).
Before the CIT(A), NFAC, the quantum appeal was filed with a delay of 219 days and the penalty appeal with a delay of 76 days. The Assessee explained the delay citing severe financial stress, multiple litigations, attachment of assets by the Department, business disruptions and personal distress of a director due to a family bereavement. The CIT(A), however, refused to condone the delay and dismissed both appeals without examining merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) adopted an unduly technical approach, contrary to the settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji and Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 LiveLaw SC 339), which mandate that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities and that meritorious matters should not be shut out at the threshold on limitation alone.
Accordingly, the ITAT directed the CIT(A), NFAC to condone the delay and decide both the quantum and penalty appeals afresh on merits, after granting due opportunity to the Assessee, with a caution to avoid unnecessary adjournments. Both appeals were thus allowed for statistical purposes
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
