SHYAM KUMAR RAMSWAMI GOUD BHANDARI ,NANDED vs. ITO WARD- HINGOLI, PARBHANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2965/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and the ITAT, citing reasonable cause. The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the ITAT with a significant delay. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine due to a delay of 151 days without condoning it. The assessee cited medical reasons and lack of access to legal consultants for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and if the appeal should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE

Before: HON’BLE MANISH BORAD & HON’BLE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Respondent: Shri Pramod Shahakar, JCIT

आदेश / ORDER

PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeals at the instance of assessee directed against the order Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) common dated 07.02.2025 pertain to A.Ys 2015-16 & 2018-19 arising out of the different assessment orders framed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) evenly dated 19.01.2024.

2.

Registry has pointed out that both the appeals are barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 205 and 216 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay. On due consideration of 1

ITA 2768 & 2965/PUN/2025 SHYAM SHYAM KUMAR RAMSWAMI GOUD BHANDARI the said reasons, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the the said reasons, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the the said reasons, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the the said reasons, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. We assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. We assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. We assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. We find that the delay is not intentional and therefore placi find that the delay is not intentional and therefore placi find that the delay is not intentional and therefore placing reliance ng reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 I Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 I Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the condone the delay of 205 and 216 205 and 216 days in filing the appeals before this Tribunal days in filing the appeals before this Tribunal days in filing the appeals before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assesee submitted that ld. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assesee submitted that ld. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assesee submitted that ld. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assesee submitted that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee appeal in CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee appeal in CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee appeal in limine and that t he delay of 151 days in filing the appeal for impugned assessment delay of 151 days in filing the appeal for impugned assessment delay of 151 days in filing the appeal for impugned assessment delay of 151 days in filing the appeal for impugned assessment orders has not been condoned by ld. CIT(A). Referring to the orders has not been condoned by ld. CIT(A). Referring to the orders has not been condoned by ld. CIT(A). Referring to the orders has not been condoned by ld. CIT(A). Referring to the reasons stated before ld. CIT(A) she submitted that the delay may reasons stated before ld. CIT(A) she submitted that the delay may reasons stated before ld. CIT(A) she submitted that the delay may reasons stated before ld. CIT(A) she submitted that the delay may please be condoned and one more opportunity may be granted to please be condoned and one more opportunity may be granted to please be condoned and one more opportunity may be granted to please be condoned and one more opportunity may be granted to appear before ld. CIT(A) and filed necessary submissions in support appear before ld. CIT(A) and filed necessary submissions in support appear before ld. CIT(A) and filed necessary submissions in support appear before ld. CIT(A) and filed necessary submissions in support of the grounds of appeal. of the grounds of appeal.

4.

On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld. CIT(A).

5.

We observed that the assessee is an individual and running We observed that the assessee is an individual and running We observed that the assessee is an individual and running We observed that the assessee is an individual and running business under the sole proprietors business under the sole proprietorship concern M/s Krishna Mobile hip concern M/s Krishna Mobile hip concern M/s Krishna Mobile assessment for A.Ys 2015 assessment for A.Ys 2015-16 & 2018-19 were completed u/s 147 19 were completed u/s 147 19 were completed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act and addition of Rs. 9,03,004/ r.w.s 144B of the Act and addition of Rs. 9,03,004/ r.w.s 144B of the Act and addition of Rs. 9,03,004/- and and disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI-A at Rs. 82,144/- has has been made for both the impugned assessment been made for both the impugned assessment been made for both the impugned assessment years. Aggrieved years. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) but with delay of 151 assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) but with delay of 151 assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) but with delay of 151 assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) but with delay of 151 days. It has been stated that the assessee had been suffering from days. It has been stated that the assessee had been suffering from days. It has been stated that the assessee had been suffering from days. It has been stated that the assessee had been suffering from urinal infection and undergoing treatment from many months and urinal infection and undergoing treatment from many months and urinal infection and undergoing treatment from many months and urinal infection and undergoing treatment from many months and also assessee is resident of small villa also assessee is resident of small village and do not have normal ge and do not have normal ge and do not have normal access to the legal consultants. However, ld. CIT(A) did not condone access to the legal consultants. However, ld. CIT(A) did not condone access to the legal consultants. However, ld. CIT(A) did not condone access to the legal consultants. However, ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in the delay and dismissed the appeal in the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. We however taking . We however taking justice oriented approach and also observing that the reasonable justice oriented approach and also observing that the reasonable justice oriented approach and also observing that the reasonable justice oriented approach and also observing that the reasonable cause prevented the assessee fr cause prevented the assessee from filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) in om filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) in om filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) in statutory time limit, deem it appropriate to condone the delay. statutory time limit, deem it appropriate to condone the delay. statutory time limit, deem it appropriate to condone the delay.

ITA 2768 & 2965/PUN/2025 SHYAM SHYAM KUMAR RAMSWAMI GOUD BHANDARI 6. So far as merits of the case concern, since ld. CIT(A) has not So far as merits of the case concern, since ld. CIT(A) has not So far as merits of the case concern, since ld. CIT(A) has not So far as merits of the case concern, since ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the same, we on due consideration of prayer made by ld. dealt with the same, we on due consideration of prayer made by ld. dealt with the same, we on due consideration of prayer made by ld. dealt with the same, we on due consideration of prayer made by ld. Counsel for the as Counsel for the assessee restore all the issues raised in the instant sessee restore all the issues raised in the instant sessee restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication to be carried appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication to be carried appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication to be carried appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication to be carried out after due consideration of details and er due consideration of details and er due consideration of details and submissions to be filed by filed by the assessee. Needless to mention that ld. CIT(A) shall examin the assessee. Needless to mention that ld. CIT(A) shall examin the assessee. Needless to mention that ld. CIT(A) shall examine the e the issue after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass a issue after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass a issue after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass a issue after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act and as per speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act and as per speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act and as per speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act and as per principle laid down by the Bon’ble Bombay High Court in the principle laid down by the Bon’ble Bombay High Court in the principle laid down by the Bon’ble Bombay High Court in the principle laid down by the Bon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (HUF) (Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) (Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) (Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). Assessee is directed to Assessee is directed to provide latest e provide latest e-mail id and contact details of the department for mail id and contact details of the department for mail id and contact details of the department for receiving notices from Income Tax Portal, assessee is also directed receiving notices from Income Tax Portal, assessee is also directed receiving notices from Income Tax Portal, assessee is also directed receiving notices from Income Tax Portal, assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournments to remain vigilant and not to take adjournments to remain vigilant and not to take adjournments otherwise required otherwise required for reasonable cause. Accordingly the grounds raised by the for reasonable cause. Accordingly the grounds raised by the for reasonable cause. Accordingly the grounds raised by the for reasonable cause. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on Order pronounced in the open court on Order pronounced in the open court on 15.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- PAVAN KUMAR GADALE AN KUMAR GADALE MANISH BORAD JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune Dated: 15.05.2026 6

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →