RAMCHANDRA NARAYAN WARAGADE,PUNE vs. THE ITO WARD 3(3), PUNE

The brief facts of the case are that, the Assessing Officer (A.O) has received information from the Insight Portal that the assessee has sold the immovable property and made cash deposits in the bank account in the F.Y.2014-15 and the assessee has not filed the return of income. The A.O. has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and fallowed due procedure as provided under section148A of the Act and issued notice u/sec148(b) of the Act and subsequently issued notice u/sec148 of the Act. In compliance, the assessee has filed the return of income on 1.07.2022 disclosing a total income of Rs.3.05,810/-. Further notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued to explain the transactions of sale of property and sources of cash/ time deposits in the bank. The assessee has filed the partial information, whereas the A.O was not satisfied with the explanations and made addition of entire sale consideration of Rs.1,21,00,000/- as short term capital gains and similarly unexplained time deposits u/sec69 of the Act of Rs.8,40,000/- and assessed the total income of Rs. 1,32,45,810/- and passed the order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 22.03.2024. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) found that there is a delay of 72 days in filing the appeal and the assessee has not explained the sufficient reasons for the delay. He further did not condone the delay and dismissed the assessee’s appeal inlimine. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not considered the facts and valid reasons of the assessee being a senior citizen as mentioned in the Form.No.35 and the delay in filling the appeal was neither deliberate nor wanton act, but due to lack of knowledge and age factor of the assessee. The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has a good case on merits and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate with material evidences before the lower authorities. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie, the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no proper compliance by the assessee in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the delay in filling the appeal was not explained with reasonable cause. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging additions made by the Assessing Officer and there could be various reasons for no proper compliance. Whereas the assessee in Form.No.35 made a requestfor condonation of delay in filling the appeal. Therefore, considering the facts, provisions and the condonation of delay request and are of the opinion that there is a reasonable cause in filing of the appeal with delay and there is no benefit derived in causing delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case ofB. MadhuriGoudvrs. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693, has held that the following principles must be kept in mind while considering the application for condonation of delay; (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non- 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. (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 cause 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.

The Hon'ble supreme court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji& others (167 ITR 471) (SC) has observed as under :

We respectfully follow the observations and ratio of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited(supra) and find that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) by the assessee is supported with sufficient cause and therefore pragmatic approach should have been condoned. Further considered and the delay is considering the principles of natural justice, the assessee shall be provided with one more opportunity of hearing to substantiate the case along with the evidences and explanations. Accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal. And the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th August, 2026. DIPAK P. RIPOTE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Pune, Dated: 13th August, 2026 Abhishek Abhishek Mohan Mohan Date: 2026.08.13 16:48:55 +05'30' आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अिीिार्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभागीयप्रतितिति,आयकरअिीिीयअतिकरण, “B” बेंच, पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गार्डफ़ाइि / Guard File. 5. ////