KRISHNA HANUMANT MEDANKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(3), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1995/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 August 2026AY 2016-20175 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, considering the reasons provided as sufficient cause. The Tribunal restored both the quantum addition and the penalty issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) with significant delays, citing non-receipt of notices due to issues with their erstwhile tax consultant. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeals as time-barred without condoning the delay or adjudicating on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was to be condoned, and whether the matter should be adjudicated on merits after the delay was condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 147,Section 144,Section 250,Section 271(1)(b)

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: Shri Ronak H Jain
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar
Hearing: 06.08.2026Pronounced: 18.08.2026

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण "ए" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 1994 & 1995/PUN/2026 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vs Income Tax Officer, Krishna Hanumant Medankar, R. No. 21, B- Block No. 6, Ward-8(3), Pune River Road, Behind Laxmi Dharamshala, Pimpri, Pune-411017,Maharashtra PAN-AGIPM4096L Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Ronak H Jain Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Haladkar, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 06.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 18.08.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM : These two appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 18.02.2026 framed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 which are arising out of respective assessment /penalty order passed

2 ITA No. 1994 & 1995/PUN/2026 Krishna Hanumant Medankar

u/s.271(1)(c) and u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, dated 23.09.2022 &19.03.2022.

2.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No.1995/PUN/2026:-

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without condoning the delay and in not adjudicating the appeal on merits, despite the Appellant being prevented by sufficient cause due to non-receipt of notices, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.37,11,836/- without appreciating that there was neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars, as the Appellant had correctly disclosed the transaction and the declared consideration was higher than the stamp duty value. 3. The learned authorities below failed to appreciate that where the underlying addition itself is unsustainable in law, the consequential penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is liable to be deleted. 4. The appellant craves leave to add and/or alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

2.1 Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 1994/PUN/2026:

“1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without condoning the delay, despite the appellant being prevented by sufficient cause due to non- receipt of notices and lack of knowledge of the proceedings. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the matter on merits, thereby violating

3 ITA No. 1994 & 1995/PUN/2026 Krishna Hanumant Medankar

the principles of natural justice and denying the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Assessing Officer erred in making additions by invoking stamp duty valuation provisions without appreciating that the appellant had correctly disclosed the full value of consideration and that the consideration declared was higher than the stamp duty value attributable to the appellant's share. 4. The learned Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty under sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) in absence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and despite the existence of reasonable cause. 5. The appellant craves leave to add and/or alter any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing.”

3.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. ITA No.1195/PUN/2026 is against the quantum addition of Rs.1,07,48,750/- and ITA No. 1194/PUN/2026 is against the levy of penalty of Rs. 37,11,836/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is not in dispute that there is inordinate delay of 1189 days and 1377 days in filing of the appeals before ld. CIT(A) against the quantum addition and penalty. On going through the reasons for delay provided by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A), it appears that the notices by ld. Assessing Officer (AO) were sent on the e-mail Id of the erstwhile tax consultant who failed to communicate the assessee. Considering it to be a ‘reasonable cause’ and the delay being neither deliberate nor intentional and that the assessee had not gained from delaying the appeal, we therefore in the natural interest of justice and placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs.

4 ITA No. 1994 & 1995/PUN/2026 Krishna Hanumant Medankar

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 of 1189 days and 1377 days.

4.

Since there is no adjudication on merits of the case by ld.CIT(A) and neither any submissions on merits of the case were made by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A), therefore we deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee. We also note that the assessment order is also ex-parte and all the notices were sent by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) during the Covid- 19 Pandemic period and therefore the assessee had sufficient reason for not appearing before Ld. AO. We are therefore of the considered view that the issue on merits deserves to be restored to the file of Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) who shall decide the issue afresh in accordance with law.

5.

Since quantum addition is restored to the file of Ld. AO and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being dependent on the quantum addition, therefore, the issue raised against the levy of penalty also restored to the file of Ld. JAO to be taken up only after the adjudication of the issues relating to quantum addition. Effective grounds of appeal raised in the instant two appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

5 ITA No. 1994 & 1995/PUN/2026 Krishna Hanumant Medankar

5.

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

Order pronounced on 18th day of August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune, Dated :- 18th August, 2026. Neeta Satish Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.08.18 Madishetty 15:40:14 +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, // True Copy // सहायक रजिस्ट्रार/Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →