SUBHASH NAMDEV KATE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), 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.1471/PUN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Subhash Namdev Kate, Vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), Pune. S.No.59, Munjoba Chowk, Near Munjoba Mandir Pimple Saudagar, Pune City, Aundh Camp S.O., Pune- 411027. PAN : DATPK1334R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ritvik Vatsyayan Revenue by Ms. Bhavya I. V. : Date of hearing : 20.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 27.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.02.2026 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without properly appreciating the bona fide reasons for delay and without adopting a liberal approach as mandated by judicial precedents. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but due to genuine circumstances, and therefore ought to have been condoned in the interest of substantial justice.

2 ITA No.1471/PUN/2026 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating the appeal on merits, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 4. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition based solely on Form 26AS without appreciating that: o The appellant was only a co-owner (50% share. o The entire sale consideration cannot be taxed in the hands of one co-owner. 5. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in ignoring the registered sale deed, which clearly establishes the proportionate ownership and consideration. 6. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making addition based on incorrect reporting in Form 26QB, which was due to a clerical error committed by the buyer and not attributable to the appellant. 7. The learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that: o TDS was correctly deducted and deposited. o There was no suppression of income 8. The addition made is arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to facts and law. 9. The learned authorities below have erred in not granting relief despite the availability of documentary evidence such as: o TDS challans. o Sale deed. o Bank records. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any of the above grounds.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return for the year under consideration. On the basis of information on the income tax portal that the assessee had sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs.1,69,60,740/- and has not disclosed above transaction in his return of income, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act and notice u/s 148 was issued to the

3 ITA No.1471/PUN/2026 assessee on 24.03.2023 after following the procedure provided in section 148A(b)/(d) of the IT Act. The assessee furnished return on 02.03.2024 by declaring income of Rs.6,33,000/- in response to above notice. Since the assessee did not furnish any response to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 21.03.2024 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.1,75,93,740/- as against income of Rs.6,33,000/- returned by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.1,69,60,740/- being unexplained short term capital gain on sale of immovable property. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the appeal was furnished belatedly i.e. with a delay of 286 days, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay without going into merits of the case. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record filed along-with appeal set. In this

4 ITA No.1471/PUN/2026 regard, we find that it is the sole request of the counsel of the assessee that the matter may kindly be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC so that the assessee can substantiate the grounds of appeal, since earlier, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC failed to decide merits of the case and dismissed the appeal only on the ground of delay for which the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not furnishing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC within the prescribed time limit. It was also submitted before us that the whole of the consideration has been added in the hands of the assessee whereas the property was sold jointly by two persons, therefore, addition, if any, can be made regarding the proportionate share of the assessee only. 7. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits of the case and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to produce relevant

5 ITA No.1471/PUN/2026 documents, submissions and evidences, if any, in support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 27th day of July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 27th July, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.07.28 10:48:20 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.