What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that substantial justice is paramount and a pragmatic approach should be taken for condoning delay. The Tribunal was convinced that there was sufficient cause for the delay due to the personal tragedy.

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of approximately two years. The assessee cited personal tragedy leading to severe mental and physical illness as the reason for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned based on the reasons provided by the assessee.

Sanjay Sambhajirao Ghule, Pune vs ITO | s.250 | ITAT Pune 2026

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

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh Khandelwal &, Ms. Diksha Agarwal

For Respondent: Ms. Bhavya. I.V., Jt. CIT

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M :

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2011-12 on 13.02.2026, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, dated 26.12.2018.

Submission of Ld. AR :

The Ld. AR Mr. Neelesh Khandelwal filed a paper book containing 84 pages. The Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had not condoned the delay of two years in filing of the appeal. The Ld. AR read out the reasons submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay. The Ld. AR also read out the affidavit.

ITA No. 2130/PUN/2026

Submission of Ld. DR :

The Ld. DR had no objection if the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.

Findings and analysis:

We have heard both the parties and perused the record. In this case, the reason for delay of around two years has been mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order itself which were filed by the assessee with a request for condonation of delay. We have carefully read the reasons submitted by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay. It is noted that there is personal tragedy in the case of the assessee which resulted into severe mental and physical illness of the assessee. Though, in the affidavit, the assessee has specifically mentioned the tragedy. We are of the opinion that it is inappropriate to refer to such kind of tragedy in this order which are published on ITAT website. However, we are convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others Civil Appeal Nos.8183-8184 of 2013 vide order dated 13.09.2013 has laid down following principles for deciding Condonation Application: Quote, “15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation.

ITA No. 2130/PUN/2026

iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective xiii) cause should be given some acceptable latitude. ” Unquote. 5.1 Thus, the legal position discernible from the aforesaid decisions is that the substantial justice is paramount consideration and pivotal.

Thus, the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that the pragmatic approach should be taken while dealing with

ITA No. 2130/PUN/2026

condonation of delay. In these facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 17th August, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 17-08-2026 Ravi Kumar Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.08.17 12:43:56 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

SANJAY SAMBHAJIRAO GHULE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(2), PUNE, PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments