BASHIR SAHEBKHAN PATHAN,PUNE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and is running a hospital in the name and title of Jeevandeep Nursing Home. The assessee is also engaged in the business of land dealing and real estate business. He filed his return of income on 28.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.16,60,501/-. Subsequently a survey action u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was carried out on 18.02.2020 at the hospital premise at S.No.191, Nagpur Chawl, Yerawada, Pune. Statement of the assessee was recorded during the course of survey wherein he was asked to explain the documents found and impounded during the course of survey proceedings. The assessee could not explain properly about the notings or entries found in the diary. The Assessing Officer, therefore, after obtaining prior approval from the competent authority recorded reasons for reopening of the assessment and accordingly notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 30.03.2021. Since the assessee did not file any details to substantiate various queries raised by the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.9,58,02,280/-.

Since the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 17 days, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on various decisions dismissed the appeal in limine.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had duly explained the reasons for the delay in filing of the appeal in the statement of facts which was due to the negligence of the consultant. However, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee had not filed any application for condonation of delay. He submitted that this type of hyper technical approach of the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified. Relying on various decisions the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) should have admitted the appeal. He submitted that since the Assessing Officer passed order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 due to non-compliance to the statutory notices by the assessee, it requires intensive verification, therefore, the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for early completion of the assessment.

The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer and did not file any condonation application before the Ld. CIT(A).

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(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 due to non-submission of various details by the assessee as asked by the Assessing Officer he was constrained to pass the order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. We find since there was a delay in filing of the appeal before the

We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 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:

In the light of the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court 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. CIT(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 giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make his submissions, if any, on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. CIT(A) is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

After hearing both the sides we find the grounds raised by the assessee in the above appeals are identical to the grounds raised in ITA No.3125/PUN/2025. We have already decided the issue and remitted the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the issue on merit and as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Following similar reasonings, we remit the issue back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with similar directions.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.