ANNAPA RAVASAHEB PARIT,ABDUL LAT vs. ITO WARD 1, ICHALKARANJI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1277/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 August 2026AY 2024-256 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, citing Supreme Court judgments, held that a liberal and justice-oriented approach should be adopted for condoning small delays. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 14 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. The assessee's counsel attributed the delay to a mistake by the previous counsel.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning a short delay of 14 days in filing the appeal, thereby refusing to decide the appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144B,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Hari Krishan
For Respondent: Shri Avinash Karpe

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1277/PUN/2026 Assessment Year : 2024-25

Annapa Ravasaheb Parit ITO, Ward – 1, Parit Lane, Abdul Lat, Vs. Ichalkaranji Lat B.O. Lat, Kolhapur – 416143 PAN : BAGPP8617M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hari Krishan Department by : Shri Avinash Karpe Date of hearing : 11-08-2026 Date of pronouncement : 13-08-2026

O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.03.2026 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2024-25.

2.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in not condoning the delay of 14 days in filing of the appeal and thereby dismissing the appeal as unadmitted.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 16.05.2024 declaring total income of Rs.11,54,940/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(2)

2 ITA No.1277/PUN/2026

and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the assessee filed the relevant details. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B on 27.11.2025 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.18,81,410/- where he made addition of Rs.7,26,470/- on account of unexplained cash deposit by invoking the provisions of section 69A.

4.

Since the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 14 days before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as unadmitted.

5.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

6.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was in consultation with his Counsel who did not file the appeal in time. Relying on various decisions he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have condoned the small delay of 14 days and decided the appeal on merit. He accordingly submitted that in the interest of justice the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit.

3 ITA No.1277/PUN/2026

7.

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

8.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by not condoning the delay of 14 days. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that due to the mistake on the part of the concerned Counsel, there was a delay in filing of the appeal. It is also his submission that the small delay of 14 days should have been condoned by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and the appeal should have been decided on merit.

9.

We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 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

4 ITA No.1277/PUN/2026

is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

10.

We find 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 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26310-26311/2024 order dated 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 above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited (supra) and considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit and as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make his submissions, if any, on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC

5 ITA No.1277/PUN/2026

is 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.

13.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 13th August, 2026 GCVSR Gajjala Chinna Digitally signed by Gajjala Chinna Venkata Subba Reddy Venkata Subba Reddy Date: 2026.08.13 13:11:24 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 2. 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. 5. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

6 ITA No.1277/PUN/2026

S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 11.08.2026 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 11.08.2026 Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before the 3 JM/AM Second Member Draft discussed/approved by Second 4 AM/AM Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS Date on which the file goes to the Office 9 Superintendent 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order

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 →