SATISH SEGA GAVIT,AT POST RAIGAON, NAVAPUR vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, DHULE., AAYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKRI ROAD, OPP. TO MSCB OFFICE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1934/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 August 2026AY 2015-166 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, following Supreme Court judgments emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in a poultry farm business, did not file an income tax return for AY 2015-16. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings under Section 147 based on bank deposits totaling Rs. 69,22,040/- that were not offered to tax. The assessee failed to respond to notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment and an addition of Rs. 75,48,675/- under Section 69A.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without considering the merits, and whether the delay should be condoned to allow for a decision on the substantive issues of the assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 249(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA & SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: CA Sanjeev Mutha
For Respondent: Ms. Bhavya I.V. Jt.CIT

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1934/PUN/2026 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Satish Sega Gavit, The Income Tax Officer, At Post Raigaon, Ward-1, Navapur, vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Dist-Nandurbar Sakri Road, Maharashtra-425418. Opp. to MSCB Office, PAN : ATNPG5469M Vidhya Vihar Colony, Dhule, Maharashtra-424001. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : CA Sanjeev Mutha (Virtual) Department by : Ms. Bhavya I.V. Jt.CIT Date of Hearing : 05-08-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20-08-2026 O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, J.M.:

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24-03-2026 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”) 2015-16.

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual, carrying on the business of poultry farm and earned income by selling eggs. For AY. 2015-16, the assessee did not file his return of income. Based on the information flagged as per Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT through ITBA software under the head „Non-filing of Returns – NMS cases‟, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) found that the assessee has deposited huge money into the bank account maintained by him during the relevant AY. which has not been offered to tax and remained unexplained/undisclosed. Accordingly, as per the provisions of section 148(A)(b) of the Act, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee, asking the assessee as to why income from the above

2 ITA No. 1934/PUN/2026 transactions totaling to Rs. 69,22,040/- should not be treated as income chargeable to tax, which has escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of section 147 of the Act. However, the assessee failed to respond to the said notice. Subsequent notice(s) u/s. 148 along with 142(1) of the Act and show cause notice were also issued. In response, the assessee neither filed return of income nor responded to the said notices. Since the assessee did not furnish any replies/submission, the Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment ex-parte and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 75,48,675/- thereby making an addition of Rs. 75,48,675/- on account of variation of income u/s. 69A of the Act, vide his order dt. 11-12-2023 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. Before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC the appeal was filed belatedly. According to the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, since the assessee failed to provide any sufficient cause as per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act for delay in filing of the appeal, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee without deciding the issue(s) on merits.

4.

Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following Grounds of Appeal: “In view of the facts of the case, provisions of law, submissions made and the applicable case law- 1. On the basis of facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal without considering that the delay was due to reasonable and bona fide causes. 2. On the basis of facts and as per law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not cancelling the notice issued u/s. 148 as well as assessment order passed pursuant to said notice u/s. 148, in the instant case being bad in law as the same is not issued through automated allocation, in accordance with risk management strategy formulated by the Roard and more particularly the notice u/s. 148 is not issued as per directions given in Notification No. 18/2022/ F No. 370142/16/20220TPL (Part-1) dated 29/03/2022. 3. On the basis of facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not cancelling the notice issued u/s. 148

3 ITA No. 1934/PUN/2026 because the same is issued for the reason that the appellant has deposited the cash in bank account, when there is no law whereby it can be presumed that the cash deposited in bank account is income of the assessee. 4. On the basis of facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not cancelling the notice issued u/s. 148 as well as the assessment order passed u/s. 147 pursuant to same as the notice u/s. 148 is issued after the three years from the end of relevant assessment year and the CIT(A) does not have possession of books of accounts or other document or evidence which reveals that the income chargeable to tax, represented in the form of asset or expenditure or an entry or entries in the books of account amounting to Rs. 50 Lakhs or more, has escaped from assessment. 5. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not cancelling the notice issued u/s. 148 as the same is issued without appraising the appellant for exact reason i.e. without striking off the irrelevant portion in the said notice. 6. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in making addition of Rs. 75,48,675/- which was made by invoking the provisions of section 69A on account of unexplained money. 7. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 75,48,675/- made u/s. 69A on account of cash deposited in the bank accounts of the appellant, particularly when the provisions of section 69A are not applicable in the present case 8. The appellant craves for the addition to, deletion, alteration, modification of the above ground of appeal.” 5. The Ld.AR submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal was not intentional, but occurred due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee, which are stated in Form-35 and the same are reproduced below for reference: “5. The appellant could not respond to the various notices issued mainly because he was not aware about the impugned proceedings and there were multiple proceedings going on against the appellant, which the appellant was not aware. The appellant is a layman does not know the intrinsic provisions of law as well as procedures, etc. 6. The appellant came to know about the impugned assessment order when the appellant met Shri S. S. Mutha, CA regarding filing of appeal against the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(b) for A.Y. 2014-15 because Shri S S Mutha CA verified the account of the appellant on the portal and came to know about the impugned assessment order. This is because the assessment procedings for A.Y. 2014-15 were also in progress and Mr. Prajapati who was helping the appellant mixed up the proceedings for the year under appeal with the ongoing assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2014-15.” 5.1. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and therefore humbly urged that, in the interest of justice, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC may be directed to condone the delay in filing of the

4 ITA No. 1934/PUN/2026 appeal and decide the case on merits, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.

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

7.

We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the Parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld.AO has completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act at an assessed income of Rs. 75,48,675/- thereby making an addition of Rs. 75,48,675/- on account of variation of income u/s. 69A of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on account of delay in filing of the appeal without dealing with the issue(s) raised by the assessee before him. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal was not intentional, but occurred due to the reasons stated above and humbly prayed for condonation of delay and adjudication on merits of the case.

8.

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.

9.

We 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:

5 ITA No. 1934/PUN/2026 "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." 10. 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.

11.

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 and as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the parties. Needless to say, the assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and make his submissions 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 grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

12.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20-08-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (ASTHA CHANDRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Tadepalli Naga Digitally signed by Tadepalli Naga पुणे/Pune; Murali Mohan Murali Mohan Date: 2026.08.21 10:02:30 +05'30' दिन ांक/Dated : 20-08-2026 TNMM

6 ITA No. 1934/PUN/2026

आिेश की प्रदिदिदप अग्रेदिि / Copy of the Order is forwarded to: l. अपीि र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, „B‟ 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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →