DIPAK SHANKARRAO KAND,RAM NAGAR, LONIKAND, TALUKA HAVELI, PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2), PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SHANKAR SETH ROAD, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1621/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 August 2026AY 2016-176 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay was not intentional and was due to reasons beyond the assessee's control. Substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, and the delay was condoned.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 603 days without condonation. The assessee claimed the delay was due to not receiving notices, being unfamiliar with faceless proceedings, and attending criminal proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the significant delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri Deepak S. Sasar, Shri Arpit D. Dambhare
For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan
Hearing: 27.07.2026Pronounced: 31.07.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 23.01.2026 framed by ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment order dated 19.05.2023 u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act.

2.

Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 13.01.2026 declaring total income at Rs.12,66,240/-. Based on the information received from the category of High Risk Transaction -CRIU/VRU information on Insight Portal, it is noticed that the assessee has entered into significant financial transactions. Case of the assessee reopened and proceedings

2 Dipak Shankarrao Kand u/s.147 of the Act initiated. Valid statutory notices u/s.148, 142(1) and various show cause notices issued to the assessee. Neither the assessee has filed any return of income in response to notice u/s.148 nor any explanation has been submitted. Ld. Assessing Officer vide order dated 19.05.2023 concluded the assessment proceedings making various additions and assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.11,24,37,754/-

3.

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but with a delay of 603 days and ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee, without condoning the delay. Now the assessee has approached this Tribunal assailing the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A).

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. The sole grievance of the assessee is that whether ld.CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine, without condoning the delay of 603 days.

5 We proceed to evaluate whether the delay in the present case needs to be condoned in the given facts and circumstances. We note that the assessment order in the instant case was passed on 19.05.2023. The assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 11.02.2025. There is delay of 603 days. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to Affidavit filed by the assessee demonstrated the facts of the case and the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeal before ld.CIT(A). Precise reasons for the delay are that the assessee has not received any notices on the registered email id : sandeepshivale941@gmail.com. The assessee is only 9th standard and not conversant with the Faceless proceedings. Further, the Tax Consultant was no 3 Dipak Shankarrao Kand responsive. Further, there were criminal proceedings before various Hon’ble Courts and the assessee was engaged in personally attending them and hence the delay is not intentional and therefore ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for condoning the delay and restoring the issue to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication.

6.

Hon’ble Courts in the series of judgements have held that while condoning the delay the expression of ‘sufficient cause’ should be construed for advancing substantial justice to the party concerned. For evaluating ‘sufficiency of cause’ and then, for deciding condonation of delay, following principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 should be kept in mind:

(i) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. (ii) 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 is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (iii) "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be taken. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common- sense pragmatic manner. (iv) 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 nondeliberate delay. (v) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. (vi) It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so.

4 Dipak Shankarrao Kand

6.

1 The above judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court makes it vivid that substantial justice deserves to be preferred rather than deciding the matter on the basis of technical error.

6.

2 Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vareli textile industry versus CIT reported in 154 Taxman 33 has held as under:

It is equally well-settled that where a cause is consciously abandoned (as in the present case) the party seeking condonation has to show by cogent evidence sufficient cause in support of its claim of condonation. The onus is greater. One of the propositions of settled legal position is to ensure that a meritorious case is not thrown out on the ground of limitation. Therefore, it is necessary to examine, at least prima facie, whether the assessee has or has not a case on merits.

6.

3 In the above judgment, the Hon’ble Court held that a meritorious case of the assessee should not be thrown away due to negligence or on account of technical lapses.

6.

4 Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the facts, we find that the delay cannot be attributed either to deliberate inaction or to any lack of bona fides on the part of the assessee. The circumstances explained demonstrate that the default occurred due to reasons beyond the assessee's control and not on account of any negligence, or want of diligence. In our considered view, assessee has satisfactorily established the existence of "sufficient cause" for the delay in preferring the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Adopting justice oriented approach and placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder

7.

Considering the entire factual matrix and in the interest of justice, ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay. In view thereof and without dwelling upon the merits of the case, we are inclined to remit back the issue raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the issue on merits as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 31st day of July, 2026. (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 31st July, 2026. Satish

Satish Kumar Madishetty 6 Dipak Shankarrao Kand

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “A” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

////

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →