VIDYA SHANTARAM SHINDE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO), WARD 4(4), PUNE, PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.27/PUN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vidya Shantaram Shinde, Vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), Pune. 36A, Ragvilas Society, Lane C, North Main Road, Koregaon Park, Pune- 411001. PAN : ALTPS2088J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by Ms. Bhavya I. V. : Date of hearing : 20.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 30.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.10.2025 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Chennai [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. There is delay of 6 days in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay of 6 days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal.

2 ITA No.27/PUN/2026 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has furnished her return of income on 02.08.2016 by declaring income of Rs.13,76,000/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act. From perusal of order of Ld. CIT(A) it appears that the assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed on 19.12.2028 by making an addition of Rs.37,32,666/-. However, we find that no such assessment order is available on record except intimation u/s 143(1) of the IT Act. 4. Even before Ld. CIT(A), the appeal was filed belatedly with the delay of 2 years and 05 days, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed despite the intimation of date of hearing, therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record as well as after hearing Ld. DR. 7. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that on earlier occasions the case was adjourned, even today also when the case was called for

3 ITA No.27/PUN/2026 hearing, neither anybody appeared nor any application for adjournment was filed, despite intimation of the date of hearing. 8. Since no submission was made before us by the assessee in support of grounds of appeal, we are unable to draw any inference. We therefore confirm the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 30th day of July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 30th July, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.07.30 12:23:38 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Chennai. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.