NOORJAHAN SUBHAN ALI ANSARI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 793/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 July 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 400-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating it was neither deliberate nor intentional. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2018-19, leading to additions for unexplained investment and income from other sources. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a 400-day delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and whether the issues should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 56(2)(x),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Mantri
For Respondent: Smt. Shilpa NC
Hearing: 17.06.2026Pronounced: 28.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.793/PUN/2026 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Noorjahan Subhan Ali Ansari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 1905, Lotus Residency, Ward-14(1), Pune A-Wing, Ram Mandir, Bangur Nagar, Goregaon, Mumbai 400104 Maharashtra PAN : AOTPA6323B Appellant Respondent

Appellant by : Shri Sumit Mantri (through virtual) Respondent by : Smt. Shilpa NC Date of hearing : 17.06.2026 Date of pronouncement : 28.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 18.12.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 20.11.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

The sole grievance of the assessee revolves around the addition for unexplained investment at Rs.70.00 lakh and addition for income from other sources at Rs.3,89,600/-.

ITA No.793/PUN/2026 Noorjahan Subhan Ali Ansari 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee raised legal grounds as well as grounds on merits of the case before ld.CIT(A) but the same remained to be adjudicated as ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 400 days in filing of the appeal. He only prayed that the delay is not deliberate and intentional and the same may please be condoned and all the issues may be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication to which ld. DR though supported the order of ld.CIT(A) but did not object to the request made by ld. Counsel for the assessee.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 and addition for unexplained investment and addition u/s.56(2)(x) of the Act was made by the Assessing Officer at Rs.70.00 lakh and Rs.3,89,600/-. We note that the appeal before ld.CIT(A) is delayed by 400 days. It has been stated by the assessee that recently at the end of October, 2024 when the assessee received a call from the ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for the recovery of outstanding demand then only he came to know about the passing of the assessment order raising a huge demand. Averments of the application for condonation of delay clearly indicates that the delay before ld.CIT(A) is neither deliberate nor intentional and therefore in light of ratio laid down by the 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 400 days in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A) and admit the appeal for adjudication.

ITA No.793/PUN/2026 Noorjahan Subhan Ali Ansari

5.

So far as the issue raised in the instant appeal, we find that ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine without condoning the delay. In view thereof, without dwelling into the merits of the case, the issues raised in the instant appeal are remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that ld. CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 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.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Impugned order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced on this 28th day of July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 28th July, 2026. Satish

Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.07.28 15:02:58 +05'30'

ITA No.793/PUN/2026 Noorjahan Subhan Ali Ansari 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, “B” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

// True Copy // Assistant Registrar, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →