PANKAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1900/PUN/2026Status: HeardITAT Pune04 August 2026AY 2016-177 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), emphasizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities. It directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits, allowing the assessee to present documents and grounds.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 100-day delay. The assessee claimed the delay was due to not understanding notices and issues with their tax practitioner. The AO added the entire cost of a jointly purchased flat to the assessee's income.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the AO erred in adding the entire cost of a jointly purchased property to the assessee's income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 148A,Section 142(1),Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: MS. ASTHA CHANDRA & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas V. Mehendale
For Respondent: Ms. Bhavya I.V., Jt. CIT

आदेश /ORDER

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 2016-17 on 13.02.2026, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 27.01.2024.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the Facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. Assessing Officer has erred in re-opening the Assessment on the basis of erroneous and arbitrary amounts of Escaped Income under the Head Salary and Unexplained Investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

ITA No.1900/PUN/2026

2.

On the Facts and Circumstances of the case and in Law, Hon. NFAC has erred in rejecting the appeal without going into the merits of the appellant's case. 3. On the Facts and Circumstances of the case and in Law, Hon. NFAC has erred in ignoring the fact that there is a variance in the amounts of escaped income respectively mentioned in the Insight Portal, Notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act, Order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, Form 26AS and the Assessed Income, which amounts to the non-application of mind by the ld. AO, which invalidates the entire assessment under the provisions of re- opening of assessment under the Act. 4. On the Facts and Circumstances of the case and in Law, Hon. NFAC has erred in rejecting appellant's Grounds of Appeal purely due to the Delay in Filing the Appeal and without considering the online submissions on Merits made on 11-07- 2025. 5. On the Facts and Circumstances of the case and in Law, Hon. NFAC has erred in not considering the TDS on Salary while determining the Tax Payable by the appellant. 6. Appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, and withdraw the aforesaid Grounds of Appeal.”

Submission of Ld. AR :

3.

In this case, the Ld. AR pleaded that the proper representation was not made before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. AR pleaded that there was a delay of 100 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) had not condoned the delay. The Ld. AR kept blaming on the earlier Tax Practitioner stating that the earlier Tax Practitioner had not filed the appeal in time. However, in Form No. 35 the reason mentioned by the assessee is as under : “I am IT Person not properly understand the notice as well as Order which were received on portal due to which not able to response properly on time.”

ITA No.1900/PUN/2026 3.1 The Ld. AR again repeated that the assessee was not properly represented and hence, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee. The Ld. AR pleaded that the case may be set aside to the AO so that the AO will verify the basic facts. The Ld. AR pleaded that the assessee had purchased a flat in Kharghar, Navi Mumbai by taking loan. However, in the paper book, the Ld. AR has merely filed first page of Deed of Assignment dated 06.05.2016. The Ld. AR has not bothered to file the complete set of Deed of Assignment or Purchase Agreement. The Ld. AR in the paper book filed copy of offer letter issued by the ICICI Bank Home Loan but the Ld. AR has not filed copy of any loan agreement demonstrating that the loan was obtained by the assessee. The Ld. AR pleaded that the case may be set aside so that the assessee will be able to file all the details.

Submission of Ld. DR :

4.

The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A).

Findings and Analysis : 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 100 days in filing of the appeal and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee has stated in Form No. 35 that he does not understand the implications of the notices issued. The assessee filed affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit reads as under : “12. There was a delay of 100 days in filing my appeal before Hon. NFAC / CIT-Appeals. I understand that I should have filed the appeal before 26-02-2024, i.e. within 30 days of the date of the Assessment Order, 27-01-2024.

ITA No.1900/PUN/2026

13.

In this connection, I may say that I have maintained only one email address for all the communications "pankajkumar0228@gmail.com". There is a Limit on Storage. It was due to my inadvertence; I was not deleting the emails. As per the usual system, the email address stops receiving / accepting the emails after reaching the threshold. 14. I sincerely feel that it was during such period, as I was in the process of changing job and also the house, I did not notice that the fresh emails had stopped for considerable time. Upon getting the knowledge of the Notices of Hearing and Receipt of the Assessment Order by email, I informed my tax counsel about the same. However, as I have stated earlier, my tax counsel was ignorant and not competent to handle the situation. He did not attend to the Notices u/s 142(1), 144 etc. 15. After receiving the Assessment Order, he could not decide the future course of action. I admit that, I am an Engineering Graduate. But, I did not properly understand the notices as well as the Order received on portal. As I have said, my counsel Akash miserably failed in taking appropriate action thereon.”

5.1 Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. No assessee is going to gain by filing the appeal belatedly.

5.2 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.1900/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. xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. ” Unquote.

5.3 Thus, the legal position discernible from the aforesaid decisions that the substantial justice is paramount consideration and pivotal.

ITA No.1900/PUN/2026 6. In this case, the assessment order was passed on 27.01.2024 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. In this case, in the assessment order in para 4.1.8, the Ld. AO has mentioned that the AO obtained copy of Sale Deed u/s 133(6) of the Act from Mr. Ashish Arora who has sold flat to assessee and his wife Mrs. Pooja Pankaj Tripathy. It is specifically mentioned in para 4.1.8 of the assessment order by the AO that the assessee along with his wife Mrs. Pooja Pankaj Tripathy had purchased Flat No. A-701, Shree Balajikrupa Co-operative Housing society Ltd., Sector 20, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai for Rs.65,00,000/-. Thus, admittedly, the assessee had purchased a flat jointly with his wife for Rs.65,00,000/-. However, in the assessment order though the AO mentioned that it was a joint property. Finally, the AO added entire amount of Rs.65,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee whereas once it is accepted by the AO that it was a joint property then we failed to understand how the AO could add entire amount of Rs.65,00,000/- in the hands of the assessee. This explains that there has been blatant injustice with the assessee. Admittedly, the assessee has not complied the notices but that does not give the AO the jurisdiction to add the entire amount. Therefore, it is important to condone the delay of 100 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). In these facts, we are of the opinion that delay needs to be condoned. We direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. The assessee shall be allowed to file necessary documents and additional ground, if any.

7.

Though, the assessee has challenged section 148 of the Act in the ground of appeal, however, the Ld. AR has not

ITA No.1900/PUN/2026

pleaded the grounds regarding challenging the veracity of section 148 of the Act. The Ld. AR has not filed any copy of order u/s 148A(d) and copy of notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act. In these facts and circumstances of the case, ground Nos. 1 and 3 are dismissed as un-adjudicated.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 04th August, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MS. ASTHA CHANDRA) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 04-08-2026 Ravi Kumar Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.08.05 09:42:43 Ravi Kumar +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

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →