RUP SINGH,JODHPUR vs. ITO,WARD 2, AHMED NAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1649/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 July 2026AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made additions to the assessee's income for cash deposits and salary income after the assessee failed to file a return and comply with notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal due to a significant delay without condoning it.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without condoning the delay, and whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present their case on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 133(6),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Hearing: 01.07.2026Pronounced: 06.07.2026

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/sec 147 r.w.s. 144 and u/sec250 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

2.

At the time of hearing, it was found that there is a delay of one day in filing the appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal and the assessee has filed the application for condonation of delay. On consideration of facts and information mentioned, there is a reasonable cause explained and the Ld. DR. has no specific objections. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that, the Assessing Officer (A.O) has received information that the assessee has made cash deposits in bank accounts during the Financial Year 2018-19 and received interest on securities and income from salary. And the assessee has not filed return of income for A.Y.2019-20.The A.O has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec148 of the Act and similarly issued notice/sec142(1) of the Act to explain the sources of cash deposits and receipt of income. The A.O provided various opportunities to the assessee and there was no compliance. Hence the A.O has issued notice u/sec133(6) of the Act on the bank and obtained the bank statements. The A.O considering the information on record, has invoked the provisions of section 144 of the Ac and made addition of unexplained money u/sec 69A of the Act of Rs.21,28,000/- and similarly the A.O made addition under the salary and income from other sources aggregating to Rs.2,75,204/- and assessed the total income of Rs..24,04,004/- and passed the order u/sec.147 r.w.s.144of the Income Tax Act dated 30.01.2024. 4. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) found that there is a delay of 214 days in filing the appeal and the assessee has not explained the sufficient reasons for the delay. He further did not condone the delay and dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

5.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not considered the facts and valid reasons of the assessee as mentioned in the Form.No.35 and the delay in filling the appeal was neither deliberate nor wanton act, but the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and also filed the affidavit of the assessee. The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has a good case on merits and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate with material evidences before the lower authorities. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

6.

Heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie, the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no proper compliance by the assessee in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the delay in filling the appeal was not explained with reasonable cause. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging additions made by the Assessing Officer and there could be various reasons for no proper compliance. Whereas the assessee in Form.No.35 made a request for condonation of delay in filling the appeal and also filed an affidavit. Therefore considering the facts, provisions and the condonation of delay request, is of the opinion there is a reasonable cause in filing of the appeal with delay and there is no benefit derived in causing delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B. Madhuri Goud vrs. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693, has held that the following principles must be kept in mind while considering the application for condonation of delay;

(i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non- 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 cause of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (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 encapsulate 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 litigation. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, is representation 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.”

7.

The Hon'ble supreme court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji & others (167 ITR 471) (SC) has observed as under :

“ The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting s. 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on "merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice—that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the "State" is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact, experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherent bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note- making, file- pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community does not deserve a litigant non grata status. The Courts, therefore, have to be informed of the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression "sufficient cause". So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even-handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits.”

8.

Therefore respectfully follow the observations and ratio of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited(supra) and find that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) by the assessee is supported with sufficient cause and therefore pragmatic approach should have been considered and condone the delay. Further considering the principles of natural justice, the assessee shall be provided with one more opportunity of hearing to substantiate the case along with the evidences and explanations. Accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issues to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information. And the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06th July, 2026. PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Pune, Dated: 06th July, 2026 Abhishek Mohan Abhishek Mohan Mohan Date: 2026.07.07 11:06:24 +05'30' आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अिीिार्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, “SMC” बेंच, पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गार्डफ़ाइि // Guard File. 5. ////

आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →