KUMAR PROPERTIES AND REAL ESTATE PVT LTD,PUNE vs. CIT, CIR-14, PUNE, PUNE

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in real estate business. It filed its return of income on 28.09.2012 declaring total income of Rs.29,98,18,537/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and accordingly statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued and served on the assessee. Subsequently notice u/s 142(1) along with a questionnaire was issued and served on the assessee.

Since there was a delay of 539 days in filing of the appeal, the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that no sufficient cause was provided by the assessee for such inordinate delay.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has: Non-adjudication of the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant 1. erred in not admitting the appeal and thereby erred in not adjudicating the grounds of appeal raised even though the Appellant had provided sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal. The reasons for the delay (as mentioned in affidavit by the Director) were adequately substantiated, and the learned CIT(A) failed to consider these justifications. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the following grounds are raised on merits, arising out of the order of the Ld. AO On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO has.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset drew the attention of the Bench to the copy of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2013-14 vide ITA No.2977/PUN/2017 order dated 28.04.2021, copy of which is placed at pages 148 to 152 of the paper book and submitted that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case has held that the provisions of section 14A are not applicable in absence of any exempt income. Referring to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment year

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that due to wrong advice by the CA not to file any appeal the assessee did not file the appeal in time and only on the basis of subsequent decisions of the Bench, the assessee preferred an appeal. Relying on various decisions, he submitted that the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) should have condoned the delay and should have decided the appeal on merit. Since in this year also the assessee has not received any exempt income and there is no recording of any satisfaction therefore, no disallowance is called for.

The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A).

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that in absence of any satisfactory

We find the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Lubricare Private Limited vs. DCIT & batch of appeals vide ITA Nos.01/PUN/2023 to 21/PUN/2023 relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Nehru through his Power of Attorney Ankit Agrawal vs. ACIT vide Civil Appeal No.11750/2018 order dated 03.12.2018 has condoned the delay of 2197 days in filing of the appeal by observing as under: “7. The moot point is as to whether such a long delay deserves condonation. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. Similar to the cases under consideration, in that case too, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court condoned the delay. 8. In yet another case in Anil Kumar Nehru and Another us. ACIT (2017) 98 CCH 0469 Bom HC, there was a delay of 1662 days in filing the appeal. Such a delay was not condoned by the Hon'ble High Court. In further appeal, condoning the delay, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Nehru vs. ACIT (2018) 103 CCH 0231 ISCC held that 'It is a matter of record that on the identical issue raised by the appellant in respect of earlier assessment, the appeal is pending before the High Court. In these circumstances, the High Court should not have taken such a technical view of dismissing the appeal in the instant case on the ground of delay, when it has to decide the question of law between the parties in any case in respect of earlier assessment year. For this reason we set aside the order of the High Court; condone the delay for filing the appeal and direct to decide the appeal on merits.' 9. Turning to the facts of the instant appeals, we find that the legal issue raised by the assessee is squarely covered in assessce's favour for the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, Kerala High Court and several orders passed by the Pune Benches of the Tribunal on this score. As

We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

We find recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under: “14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.”

In the light of the above decisions cited (supra) and considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. Addl / JCIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the issue on merit and as per fact and law after

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