VILAS KISHAN BORADE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issues of denial of deduction under Chapter VIA and loss from house property back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and decision. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals for AY 2017-18 and 2018-19 concerned denial of deduction under Chapter VIA and loss from house property. The appeals were initially filed with a delay, which was condoned by the tribunal.
What were the issues?
Whether the denial of deduction under Chapter VIA and loss from house property claims require fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.2466 and 2519/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2017-18 and 2018-19 Vilas Kishan Borade, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Maruti Mandir Parisar, Ward-2(1), Nashik Pimpalgaon Khamb, Nashik – 422 010 Maharashtra PAN : APBPB9983M Appellant Respondent
Appellant by : Shri Prasad Totala (virtual) Respondent by : Smt. R.M. Brindha Date of hearing : 27.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 30.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeals at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Yrs. 2017-18 and 2018-19 are directed against the separate orders dated 10.02.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of respective Assessment orders passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act.
Registry has pointed out that ITA No.2519/PUN/2026 is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 21 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay. On due consideration of the said reasons, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. We find that the delay is not intentional and therefore 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 Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 21 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issues on merits in the instant appeals relating to denial of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act and loss from house property deserves to be restored to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for necessary verification and allowing of deduction eligible under Chapter VIA of the Act as the same also appears in Form No.16 issued by the employer of the assessee.
On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that ld.CIT(A) has already restored the issues to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for carrying out necessary verification.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and for the assessments for A.Yrs. 2017-18 and 2018-19 the assessee has claimed loss from house property and deduction under Chapter VIA and the same were denied to the assessee. The assessee has contended that all details for claiming the alleged loss from house property and deduction under Chapter VIA are available. Considering the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and also observing that ld.CIT(A) has already restored the issues to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for making afresh assessment, we remit back the issues raised in the instant appeals to the file of ld. JAO for examination of the claim of the assessee. Needless to mention that ld. JAO shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and on due consideration of details shall decide the issues in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to update email and contact detail on the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.JAO shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Impugned orders of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years under appeal are set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in both these appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 30th day of July, 2026. (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 30th July, 2026. Satish Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.07.30 18:20:28 +05'30' 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, “SMC” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,
////
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Shree Construction, Khordha vs. The Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Pramod Kumar Behera vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Santosh Kumar Pradhan (Late Biswabhar Pradhan) vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Mrs. Sharma Glass And Plywoods vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- Sri Mohanraj vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026