GNYANOBA DAGADU MASURKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERE, WARD 6(5), PUNE, PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE BENCH “A” BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.Nos.2462 & 2463/PUN/2026 (Assessment Year: 2016-17) Gnyanoba Dagadu ITO, Ward 6(5), Masurkar, PMT Building, Shankarsheth Road, Mukaiwdi, Mulashi, Vs. Swargate, Pune-411042 Maharashtra. Pune-411037 PAN:AWMPM0907A Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri.Suhas S Kulkarni.AR For Revenue : Shri Rajesh Haladkar.Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 08.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 09.09.2026 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi (i) ITA No. 2462/PUN/2026 for the A.Y. 2016-17 against the order passed u/sec 147 and u/sec250 of the Act and (ii) ITA No. 2463/PUN/2026 for the A.Y. 2016-17 passed against the order u/sec 271(1)(C) and u/sec 250 of the Income Tax Act. . The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the orders of the CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing the appeals and sustaining the addition/penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 2. Since the issues involved in these two appeals are common, and interlinked and for the sake of convenience, we shall take

ITA.Nos.2462 & 2463/PUN/2026 Gnyanoba Dagadu Masurkar. up ITA 2462/PUN/2026 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 as a lead case and facts narrated. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the income tax department has received information that the assessee has received sale consideration on sale of immovable property and TDS u/sec194IA of the Act was deducted in the F.Y. 2015-16 and the assessee has not filed the return of income for A.Y.2016-17. The Assessing Officer (A.O) has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and fallowed the due process of law and issued notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 17.02.2023. Subsequently, the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on various dates along with questionnaire and a show cause notice and there was no compliance by the assessee. Further the A.O has issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Act on the builder and obtained the information. The A.O find that the assessee has not made submissions on the disputed issue in spite of providing adequate opportunities of hearing and finally the A.O considering the information available on record has invoked the provisions of section 144 of the Act and made addition of short term capital gains of Rs.2,65,00,000/- and intrest income of Rs.1,14,925/- and assessed the total income of Rs,2,66,14,925/-and passed the order u/sec147 r.w.s144 r.w.s144B of the Act dated 19.03.2024. 4. Subsequently the Assessing officer has issued penalty notice u/sec274 r.w.s u/sec 271(1)(c) of the Act and the assessee was provided opportunities to file the explanations but there was no compliance. The A.O. considering the information available on record levied penalty of Rs.90,09,013/- and passed under section 271(1)(C) of the Act dated 1.09.2024.

ITA.Nos.2462 & 2463/PUN/2026 Gnyanoba Dagadu Masurkar. 5. Aggrieved by the Assessment order and penalty order, the assessee has filed the separate appeals before the CIT(A). Whereas the CIT(A) found that there is a delay in filing the appeals and the assessee has not explained the sufficient reasons for the delay. He further did not condone the delay and dismissed the assessee’s appeals in limine. Aggrieved by the orders the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the separate appeals before the Hon'ble Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that 6. the CIT(A) has not considered the facts that the assessee has received the A.O orders and has filed the appeals before appellate authorities and the delay was not a wanton act nor deliberate but the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and the assessee has filed the condonation application explaining the reasonable cause. Further the Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has good case on merits and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate with the material evidences before the lower authorities. Per Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie, the CIT(A) has passed the orders 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 appeals was not explained with reasonable cause. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging addition and penalty 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 appeals

ITA.Nos.2462 & 2463/PUN/2026 Gnyanoba Dagadu Masurkar. explaining the sufficient cause. We considering the facts, provisions and the condonation of delay request, are of the opinion there is a reasonable cause in filing of the appeals with delay and there is no benefit derived in causing delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B. Madhuri Goud v. 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

ITA.Nos.2462 & 2463/PUN/2026 Gnyanoba Dagadu Masurkar. 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.” 8. 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.”

ITA.Nos.2462 & 2463/PUN/2026 Gnyanoba Dagadu Masurkar. 9. We respectfully follow the observations and ratio of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited(supra) and find that the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT (Appeals) by the assessee is supported with sufficient cause and therefore, pragmatic approach should have been considered and we condone the delay.Therefore, considering the facts, circumstances, submissions and principles of natural justice, we shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case with evidences and information. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal. And the grounds of appeal of the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 09th September, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- MANISH BORAD PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Pune, Dated: 09th September, 2026 Abhishek Mohan Digitally signed by Abhishek Abhishek Mohan Mohan Date: 2026.09.09 13:53:11 +05'30'

ITA.Nos.2462 & 2463/PUN/2026 Gnyanoba Dagadu Masurkar. आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अिीिार्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभागीयप्रतितिति,आयकरअिीिीयअतिकरण, “A” बेंच, पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गार्डफ़ाइि / Guard File 5. //True copy// आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER, Assistant Registrar, आयकरअिीिीयअतिकरण,/ ITAT, Pune.