SANDHYA SHRIKANT KADAM,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 173/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 March 2026AY 2018-197 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations. It found reasonable cause for the delay in filing before the Tribunal and condoned it.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed for a delay of 191 days. The assessee then filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 50 days, seeking condonation. The delay in filing before the CIT(A)/NFAC was attributed to circumstances related to the sale of a property by the assessee's mother, which was later treated as the assessee's long-term capital gain, leading to reassessment.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was sufficiently explained, and if the appeal should be decided on merits after condoning the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 148,Section 272A(1)(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha
For Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh, JCIT

O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.09.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2018-19.

2.

The only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in not condoning the delay of 191 days on account of insufficient cause and thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee.

3. There is a delay of 50 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. It has been mentioned in the condonation application that the assessee is a house wife and has no regular source of income for which she did not file her return of income u/s 139(1) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessee’s father had got allotment of flat from MHADA in the year 2009 and he passed away in the year 2015. The assessee’s mother Smt. Kamal Sadashivrao Pol, who became the owner of this flat, sold it on 05.12.2017 for a consideration of Rs.1,52,00,000/-. Her two daughters and two sons were the confirming parties to the sale transactions and none of the confirming parties have received any amount out of the sale consideration. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the Act in response to which the assessee filed her ITR declaring total income of Rs.48,200/-. She also submitted the particulars of transaction of sale, evidence of acquisition of the flat and copy of bank statement of her mother to show that she had not received any amount of sale consideration. However, the Assessing Officer treated the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,52,00,000/- as income of the assessee from long term capital gain. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on 16.10.2024. The assessee received notice of hearing from the office of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. The assessee uploaded detailed written arguments narrating all the facts of the case. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not consider the facts of the case and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on account of delay. Since the assessee did not receive the copy of the appellate order and came to know of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC only when she received SMS from the Income Tax Department. Thereafter, the consultant appointed by the assessee found that the appeal of the assessee filed against the penalty order passed u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act was passed and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC had deleted the penalty of Rs.30,000/-. However, appeal filed gainst the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has been dismissed. Thereafter, the assessee took steps in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal by which time there was a delay of 54 days. Relying on various decisions he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should not have dismissed the appeal on account of delay and should have decided the appeal on merit by condoning the delay. He accordingly submitted that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the issue on merit.

4.

The Ld. DR on the other hand opposed the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.

5.

After hearing both the sides, we are satisfied that there was a reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

6.

We find recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under: “14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.”

7.

In the light of the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited (supra), we condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

8.

So far as the appeal of the assessee is concerned, we find similar reasons were given to the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC also for condoning the delay. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC while dismissing the appeal of the assessee had not condoned the delay and decided the issue by observing as under:

9.

In the preceding paragraphs while deciding the issue of delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal we have relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (supra) and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (supra). Following similar reasonings, we restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the issue on merit and as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make her submissions, if any, on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th March, 2026.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →