What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there appeared to be sufficient cause for the delay, considering the medical issues and the assessee's efforts to pursue the appeal. Substantial justice was deemed paramount over technical considerations.

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 940 days, citing reasons including reliance on a tax practitioner, personal and family medical emergencies, and technical issues with the IT portal. The Revenue objected to the condonation of delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to sufficient cause, and whether the appeal should be decided on merits.

Laxman Prabhakar Shirke vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Avachat

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Keshavrao Dhivare

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2020-21 on 21.01.2026, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 02.09.2022.

Submission of Ld. AR:

The Ld. AR filed a paper book containing note and condonation petition. The Ld. AR submitted that there was delay of 940 days before the Ld. CIT(A) in filing of the appeal. The Ld. AR filed the affidavit of Mr. Laxman Prabhakar Shirke explaining the reason for delay. The Ld. AR pleaded that delay may be condoned and the Ld. CIT(A) may be allowed the appeal to decide on merits. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee is small trader and trading in fish.

Submission of Ld. DR: 3. The Ld. DR vehemently objected to the condonation of delay. The Ld. DR submitted that there was no valid reason for such inordinate delay.

ITA No.1177/PUN/2026

The Ld. DR submitted that in the affidavit it is merely mentioned that the assessee relied on local Tax Practitioner and believe that he had complied notices. The Ld. DR submitted that there was no sufficient cause for such inordinate delay.

Findings and analysis:

We have heard both the parties and perused the record. The Ld. AR has filed affidavit of Mr. Laxman Prabhakar Shirke along with copies of medical reports. The entire affidavit of Mr. Laxman Prabhakar Shirke is reproduced here as under : “I, Shri Laxman Prabhakar Shirke, the appellant in the above matter, most respectfully submit this application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal and an opportunity to contest the assessment on merits. The delay has occurred due to a combination of unavoidable circumstances beyond my control, which are explained hereinbelow. During the assessment proceedings commencing from June 2021 till the passing of the ex- parte assessment order under section 144 on 02.09.2022, all my income tax compliances were entrusted to a local tax practitioner located at Bhigwan, Mr. Ganesh Bagal who was handling my income tax matters. The tax audit was conducted separately by CA Yogesh Lakde, Pune, Bagal, Pune whose engagement was confined only to the tax audit assignment and did not include representation before the Income Tax Department or handling assessment proceedings. Being a layman in tax matters, I relied entirely upon the local tax practitioner and believed that all notices and compliances were being properly attended to. However, he neither informed me about the notices issued by the department nor sought any information or documents from me. Consequently, notices issued under sections 143(2), 142(1) and the subsequent show cause notices under section 144 remained unanswered, resulting in an ex- parte assessment order dated 02.09.2022. During this period, I was also suffering from liver-related health complications and was under continuous medical treatment. Simultaneously, my mother was facing serious medical issues requiring my constant attention and care. Being a resident of Bhigwan, a small village near Baramati, my own health condition and the family medical emergencies made it practically difficult to frequently travel to Pune or personally monitor the status of my tax matters. I first became aware of the assessment proceedings only after receiving a telephonic communication from the Income Tax Department regarding the outstanding demand for Assessment Year 2020-21 arising from the order passed under section 144 dated 02.09.2022. Immediately thereafter, I sought independent professional advice from CA Pratik Doshi, Baramati. Upon examining the assessment records, he advised

ITA No.1177/PUN/2026

that the assessment suffered from a substantial error, as the Assessing Officer had treated the cost of purchase of fish as commission expenditure, resulting in an incorrect demand, and advised me to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Acting upon such advice, I executed a Letter of Authority on a ₹500 stamp paper on 06.03.2023 authorizing him to represent me before the Income Tax Department.

Thereafter, an attempt was made on 26.03.2023 to electronically file Form No. 35 before the Commissioner (Appeals). However, due to technical issues on the Income Tax portal, the appeal could not be successfully submitted.

While the appellate process was still being pursued, my family encountered another serious setback. During late 2024, my mother developed a critical medical condition requiring prolonged treatment and continuous personal care, which substantially affected my ability to coordinate with my Chartered Accountant and attend to tax compliances. Despite these circumstances, the appeal was ultimately filed on 03.04.2025.

During the appellate proceedings, a deficiency letter dated 14.08.2025 was issued stating that the appeal fee had not been paid or that the particulars of payment had not been mentioned and that the appeal had been filed beyond the prescribed period without an application for condonation of delay. However, the challan details of the appeal fee were already correctly mentioned in Form No. 35 at the time of filing itself. The deficiency letter was valid only for ten days.

During the same period, my mother's medical condition became extremely serious and she was advised complete bed rest for approximately five months. Because of these circumstances, I could not collect the necessary documents and provide detailed instructions for preparing and filing a separate condonation application within the stipulated time. Subsequently, hearing notices dated 26.11.2025 and 08.01.2026 were issued by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Both notices contained an Annexure wherein the particulars of documents or information required from the appellant were specifically mentioned as "NA". This created a bona fide understanding that no further documents or submissions were required and that the appeal would be decided on the basis of the material already available on record. Thereafter, by order dated 21.01.2026, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal holding that "ignorance of law or negligence does not constitute a sufficient cause for condonation of delay." I respectfully submit that the circumstances leading to the delay arose from the failure of the earlier tax practitioner to communicate the assessment proceedings, my liver-related illness, continuous medical emergencies within my family, my mother's prolonged illness requiring complete bed rest, and the bona fide understanding arising from the hearing notices which did not call for any further documents. Copies of my medical records and those of my mother are enclosed for reference.

ITA No.1177/PUN/2026

The sequence of events demonstrates that immediately after becoming aware of the ex-parte assessment, I changed my professional representative, executed a Letter of Authority on 06.03.2023, attempted to file the appeal on 26.03.2023 and ultimately filed the appeal despite continuing medical hardships. These facts establish my continuous efforts to pursue the available legal remedy. The assessment has been completed ex-parte under section 144 without considering my explanation or supporting evidence. If the appeal is rejected solely on the ground of limitation, I would be deprived of an opportunity to present my case on merits, despite the assessment involving substantial additions arising from an incorrect treatment of the cost of purchase of fish as commission expenditure. I therefore most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly condone the delay in the interest of substantial justice, admit the appeal for hearing on merits, and provide me an opportunity to place the relevant facts and supporting evidence on record. I further undertake to fully cooperate with the proceedings and comply with every direction of this Hon'ble Tribunal. I further affirm that whatever is stated above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. This Affidavit is made at Baramati on 16th Day of June 2026.”

We have also observed that the assessee had also filed copies of medical certificates. Therefore, it seems that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing of the appeal.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjeevs Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others Civil Appeal Nos.8183-8184 of 2013 vide order dated 13/09/2013 has laid down following principles for deciding Condonation Application: Quote, “15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

ITA No.1177/PUN/2026

v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. ” Unquote. 6.1 Thus, the legal position discernible from the aforesaid decisions that the substantial justice is paramount consideration and pivotal.

In these facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall file all the necessary details within three effective opportunities. There shall not be any delay by the assessee.

Since, there has been inordinate delay in filing of the appeal, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) subject to the payment of cost Rs.25,000/- in favour of the Prime Minister Relief

ITA No.1177/PUN/2026

Fund and the assessee shall pay said amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Ld. CIT(A) shall satisfy himself the payment of cost to the Prime Minister Relief Fund and on such satisfaction, the Ld. CIT(A) shall condone the delay and adjudicate the issue on merits and pass the order, in accordance with law. Thus, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 14th July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 14-07-2026 Ravi Kumar Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.07.15 10:40:51 +05'30' आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्डफ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकरअपीलीयअदिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune

LAXMAN PRABHAKAR SHIRKE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(5), PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments