KRUSHNAT SHIVAJI MANE,SATARA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, SATARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1064/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 July 2026AY 2022-234 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 162 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the 'reasonable cause' shown by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) which was dismissed due to a delay of 162 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to illness and financial issues. The CIT(A) had not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned due to reasonable cause. Whether the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it in limine.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar
Hearing: 01.07.2026Pronounced: 28.07.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2022-23 is directed against the order dated 05.01.2026 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment order dated 21.02.2024 passed u/s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act.

2.

When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. DR and available material on record.

2 Krushnat Shivaji Mane

3.

The sole issue for our consideration is against the addition of Rs.1,44,93,113/- for the alleged income from 4. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and declared income of Rs.3,15,330/- in the return of income for A.Y. 2022-23 e-filed on 29.07.2022. Based on the information about the assessee winning from Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited amounting to Rs.1,44,93,113/-, case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by validly service notices for carrying the assessment proceedings. Assessee failed to respond to the notices issued. Ld. Assessing Officer accordingly framed the assessment making addition u/s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act at Rs.1,44,93,113/- and assessed income at Rs.1,48,08,443/-.

5.

Against the addition made by ld. Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but the appeal was delayed by 162 days. Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal. Now the assessee has approached this Tribunal assailing the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A).

6.

On perusal of the impugned order, we notice that the assessee explained the delay stating that he was ill and 3 Krushnat Shivaji Mane

due to financial issues delay had arisen. Further, ld.CIT(A) has only given two opportunities that too in the month of November/December and even though assessee filed submission on 02.12.2025 ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine being barred by limitation.

7.

Under these facts and circumstances, we find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee could not file the appeal within the stipulated time. We therefore condone the delay of 162 days in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 28th July, 2026. Satish

Satish Kumar Madishetty 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 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →