DATTA DIGAMBAR SAHKARI VAHATUK KAMGAR SANSTHA LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 5(2), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1993/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 August 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the merits, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed due to a delay of 117 days in filing. The assessee sought to condone this delay, citing reasonable cause.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned. Whether the merits of the additions made by the AO should be adjudicated by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A BENCH, PUNE

Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Smt Deepa Khare
For Respondent: Shri Mithun Shete
Hearing: 06.08.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

These two appeals at the instance of the assessee pertaining to A.Yrs. 2018-19 and 2017-18 are directed against the separate orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 15.04.2026 framed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 which are arising out of respective assessment orders passed u/s 147 r.w.s.144B of the IT Act, dated 28.03.2023. and 22.05.2023. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA Nos. 1992 & 1993/PUN/2026:

“1. The CIT(A) has erred in fact and in law in in dismissing appeal by not condoning the delay and confirming assessment of total income at Rs.18,43,49,292/- as against the return income of Rs. 67,96,400/-

2.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in making an addition of Rs.17,75,52,892/- on account of differential receipt appearing in the 26AS statement for the AY 2017-18 as against the receipts considered by the appellant assesse society while filing its return of income without appreciating the facts of the case.

3.

The appellant seeks permission to add, alter, amend modify, rectify, delete withdraw, the grounds of appeal and / or to take additional ground during the course of appellant proceedings.”

3.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assesses appeals for impugned assessment years by not condoning the delay of 117 days in filing of the appeal. On carefully going through the reasons for delay appearing in the impugned order and also considering the submissions of Ld. counsel for the assessee, we find that delay is neither deliberate nor intentional and ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. We therefore taking guidance from the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others(1987) 167 ITR 471 Supreme Court (SC) & in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) on merits.

4.

Since ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of the case, we therefore without dwelling upon the merits of the case restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assesse in ITA No. 1992 & 1993/PUN/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 18th day of August, 2026. (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune, Dated :- 18th August, 2026. Neeta Satish Kumar Kumar Madishetty Madishetty Date: 2026.08.18 15:37:10 +05'30' आदेश की प्रनिललपप अग्रेपर्ि /Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. विभागीय प्रतितिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, "ए" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, "A" Bench, Pune. 5. गार्ड फाइल / Guard File. आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER, //// सहायक रजिस्ट्रार/

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →