SAPNA VIPIN SETHI,AURANAGABAD vs. ITO WD-1(5), AURANGABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 905/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 July 2026AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to sufficient cause, citing Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after condoning the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file her return of income for AY 2015-16. The Assessing Officer reopened the case and made an addition of Rs. 93,97,272/- as unexplained money. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 274-day delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 250,Section 249(3),Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Rathi
For Respondent: Ms. Bhavya. I.V. – Jt.CIT

PER ASTHA CHANDRA, J.M.:

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02-01-2026 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”], u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”), pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2015-16. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. She did not file her return of income for AY. 2015-16. Based on the information available with the Department, it was found that the assessee had entered into certain transactions relating to purchase of immoveable property and deposit of cash in her savings bank account maintained with Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd., the sources of which remained unexplained due to non-filing of return by the assessee. The case of the assessee was thus reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act dt. 07-04-2022. In response to the said notice,

2 the assessee failed to file her return of income for the AY. 2015-16. Statutory notices issued u/s. 142(1) of the Act as well as show cause notices remained un-complied with by the assessee. Due to lack of any submissions/response filed by the assessee and after calling for information from the concerned bank u/s. 133(6) of the Act, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) proceeded to complete the assessment ex-parte, vide his order dt. 15-01-2024 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, thereby making an addition of Rs. 93,97,272/- treating the said amount as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC the appeal was filed with a delay of 274 days. Since, according to the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee failed to provide any sufficient cause as per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act for delay in filing of the appeal, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee without deciding the issue on merits.

4.

Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal :

“1. NON-ACCEPTANCE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY

1.

1 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['the Ld. CIT(A)'] has erred in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal despite having sufficient cause for delay in filing of an appeal.

1.2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not deciding the issue on merits.

1.

3 The appellant prays that the delay before the CIT(A) be condoned and the appeal should be taken up for the hearing.

2.

THE CHALLENGE TO REASSESSMENT

2.

1 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['the Ld. CIT'] has erred in not considering the ground of challenge to reassessment proceedings.

2.

2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Aurangabad ["The Ld. JAO"] has initiated the reassessment proceedings without fulfilling the preconditions required to initiate the reassessment proceedings U/s 148-151 of the Act.

2.

3 On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the notice u/s 148 issued by the Ld. AO is barred by limitation.

3

2.

4 In the above circumstances, facts and in law, the Appellant submits that the initiation of reassessment proceedings in the present case is without jurisdiction WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE

3.

THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151A

3.

1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the ground of appeal challenging the jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148 which is in non compliance to provisions of section 151A of the Act.

3.

2 It is submitted that in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act in the present case is bad in law and therefore deserves to be quashed.

4.

ADDITION OF 293,97,272/- IN RESPECT OF TOTAL CREDITS IN BANK ACCOUNT U/S 69A OF THE ACT

4.

1 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in affirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making addition of 93,97,272/- u/s 69A without considering the facts of the case.

4.

2 The Ld. AO erred in making addition of 93,97,272/- in respect of total credits in bank account.

4.

3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO made the addition mechanically, without applying his mind to the facts of the case as no provisions of section 69A is warranted.

4.

4 In the above facts and circumstances and in law, the addition of 93,97,272/-is not warranted and deserves to be deleted.

5.

LEAVE The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.”

5.

The Ld.AR submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal was not intentional. The assessee was facing severe personal issues at the relevant time and she eventually got divorced from her husband. He submitted that all the tax related matters were looked after by her husband and due to their separation, she could not file the appeal within the prescribed time limit. The Ld.AR filed the affidavit of the assessee in support thereof. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and therefore humbly urged that, in the interest of justice, the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC may be directed to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the case on merits, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

4

6.

The Ld.DR supported the order of the Ld.AO and Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC.

7.

We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the Parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld.AO has completed the assessment ex-parte by making an addition of Rs.93,97,272/-on account of unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on account of delay in filing of the appeal without dealing with the issue on merits. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal was not intentional, but occurred due to the reasons stated above. From the submissions made by the Ld.AR, we find some force in his contentions that there was a sufficient cause leading to the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC.

8.

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

9.

We find recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder 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."

5

10.

In the light of the decision(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), we hereby set aside the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before him by the assessee and decide the appeal on merits and as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the parties. Needless to say, the assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and make her submissions on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, unless required for the sufficient cause, failing which the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC shall be 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.

11.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 31-07-2026 (RAMA KANTA PANDA) (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Tadepalli Naga पुणे/Pune; Naga Murali Mohan दिन ांक/Dated : 31-07-2026 Murali Mohan Date: 2026.08.03 10:41:38 +05'30' TNMM

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, ////

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →