DHANRAJ KESHRIMAL SONIGARA,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIR-8, PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1985/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 August 2026AY 2018-195 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the need for substantial justice over technical considerations. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 107 days, with the reason provided being 'INCOME TAX WEBSITE WAS UNDER MAINTENANCE'. The assessee claimed the delay was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and lack of familiarity with e-filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned, and if so, whether the appeal should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar, Addl.CIT

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 1985/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dhanraj Keshrimal Sonigara, Asst. Commissioner of 229, Main Bazar, Income Tax, Dehu Road, vs. Circle-8, Pune. Pune. PAN : AHYPS3788E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department by : Shri Rajesh Haladkar, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 11-08-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20-08-2026 O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, J.M.:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06-06-2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”], u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”), pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2018-19.

2.

There is a delay of 383 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the said delay along with an affidavit, explaining therein the reasons for such delay. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the delay is attributable to the sufficient cause. We, therefore, in light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and in the case of Inder Singh vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 339, condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal.

2 ITA No. 1985/PUN/2025 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, proprietary concern and carrying business of construction and developing of housing project under the name and style of M/s. D.K. Associates. For AY. 2018-19, the assessee e-filed his return of income on 25-10-2018, declaring total income of Rs. 2,49,69,050/-, which was processed by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. The Ld.AO issued notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act to the assessee, calling for certain information/details. Being not satisfied with the reply of the assessee, the Ld.AO issued a show cause notice dt. 07-04-2021. Since the assessee had not provided any concrete evidence to substantiate his claim, the Ld.AO proceeded to complete the assessment and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 2,62,28,342/-, thereby making a disallowance of Rs. 12,59,292/- on account of interest expenses claimed by the assessee being interest free advance given to various persons, vide his order dt. 19-04-2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act.

4.

Before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, the appeal was filed with a delay of 107 days. In Form No.35, the assessee stated that “INCOME TAX WEBSITE WAS UNDER MAINTENANCE”. The said reason provided by the assessee for delay in filing of the appeal was not found to be constituting “sufficient/reasonable cause” by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine.

5.

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

6.

The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and not very conversant with the e-mails and checking the income tax portal. He submitted that the delay in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is

3 ITA No. 1985/PUN/2025 completely attributable to Covid-19 pandemic period. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee had duly brought the said reason to the notice of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC in the fact sheet attached with Form-35 which reads as under: “It may not be out of place to state and submit that the taxpayers/assessee are not much conversant and vigilant to e- filing income tax system. Besides due to widespread Covid-19 pandemic, the local restrictions for movement differ from place to place. Further the persons who look after the IT matters in Authorised Representatives office were under quarantine during that period. In this view of facts, the proposed draft assessment order could not be objected to.”

However, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has not considered the same and dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to delay in filing of the appeal. He submitted that the assessee therefore, had no malafide intention in not filing the appeal within the due time. He further submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and, therefore, humbly prayed that in the interest of justice, the delay may be condoned and an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to represent and substantiate his case before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC by filing the requisite details/documents.

7.

The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC.

8.

We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the Parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine due to delay in filing of the appeal, without deciding the issue(s) on merits of the case. Before us, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the delay was not intentional, but occurred due to the reasons stated above. He has therefore, humbly prayed that since the assessee has a strong case on merits, in the interest of justice, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC may be directed to

4 ITA No. 1985/PUN/2025 decide the assessee‟s appeal afresh on merits, after condoning the delay in filing of the appeal.

9.

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.

10.

We also find that 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."

11.

We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- 26311/2024, order dt. 31-01-2025 has held that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal.

12.

In the light of the decision(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), we hereby set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before him by the assessee and decide the appeal on merits as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to

5 ITA No. 1985/PUN/2025 the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and make his submissions before him on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, unless required for the sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The effective grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

13.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 20-08-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (RAMA KANTA PANDA) (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 20-08-2026 Tadepalli Naga Digitally signed by Tadepalli Naga Murali Mohan Murali Mohan Date: 2026.08.20 15:18:30 TNMM +05'30'

आिेश की प्रदिदिदप अग्रेदिि / Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीि र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, „A‟ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईि / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीिीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →