CHANDRAKANT KRISHANAJI PHULE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(4), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1586/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 August 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially when the delay is not deliberate. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal solely on delay was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file an income tax return for AY 2018-19. The AO reopened the case and made additions for unexplained investment and long-term capital gains. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a delay in filing, without considering the merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and whether the appeal should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 69,Section 50C,Section 115BBE,Section 250,Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri B.S. Rajpurohit
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar, Addl.CIT

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 1586/PUN/2026 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Chandrakant Krishanaji Phule, Income Tax Officer, Flat No. B-501, Prerant Co- Ward-5(4), Operative Society, KHS Lane, vs. Income Tax Office, Opposite to Abhinav English PMT Building, School, Shankar Sheth Road, Erandwane, Pune-411037. Pune, Maharashtra-411038. PAN : ABQPP4598K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri B.S. Rajpurohit Department by : Shri Rajesh Haladkar, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 25-08-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 28-08-2026 O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, J.M.:

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16-01-2026 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”], u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”), pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2018-19.

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for the year under consideration. The Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) found that during the year ended 31st March, 2018, the assessee had sold two immovable properties for a consideration of Rs. 2,62,40,000/- and Rs. 25,44,866/- respectively and also earned interest income of Rs. 80,335/- on fixed deposits maintained with Central Bank of India. Based on the above information, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee failed to file his return of income

2 ITA No. 1586/PUN/2026 in response to the said notice. Statutory notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued and duly served upon the assessee, however, there was no response from the side of the assessee. A final show cause notice was thus issued on 06-03-2023 asking why the case be not completed u/s. 144 of the Act. The assessee made his submission, raising the objection to the addition of Rs. 2,62,40,000/- proposed by the Ld.AO on account of Long Term Capital Gain. The objections raised by the assessee were not found to be acceptable by the Ld.AO as the assessee‟s claim/contentions were not supported by corroborative documentary evidence. The Ld.AO, therefore, proceeded to complete the assessment on 30-03-2023, thereby making addition(s) of – i) Rs. 80,335/- on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act and ii) Rs. 65,60,000/- (being assessee‟s 1/4th share in total consideration of Rs. 2,62,40,000/-) on account of income from Long Term Capital Gain and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 91,85,201/-, vide his order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act.

3.

Before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, the appeal was filed with a delay of 191 days. The reason provided by the assessee (reproduced in para 6.4 of his order) for delay in filing of the appeal was not found to be constituting “sufficient/reasonable cause” by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine under the provisions of section 249(3) r.w.s. 250 of the Act.

4.

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal, raising the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal even though sufficient cause was demonstrated beyond doubt. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in passing the order for non-condonation of delay

3 ITA No. 1586/PUN/2026 without giving a proper opportunity of being heard and violated the principle of natural justice. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred by not considering the submissions made by the Appellant and not adjudicating on the additions made by the Ld. AO. 4. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred by calculating the capital gain by considering the sale consideration, being the stamp duty value of property located in village Sus, taluka Mulshi, district Pune as of 31 March 2018 as per section 50C of the Act whereas the said property was sold on July 11, 1996 and the entire sale consideration was received through account payee pay order dated July 25, 1995. 5. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred by calculating the capital gain by considering the sale consideration, being stamp duty value of property located in village Bavdhan Khurd, taluka Mulshi, district Pune as of 9 January 2018 as per section 50C of the Act which is too high and without referring to Government Valuation Officer. 6. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred by considering the interest income as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act and taxed at 60% under section 115BBE of the Act instead of taxing under the head "Income from other sources." 7. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw or modify any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing of this Appeal.”

5.

The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen. Reiterating the reasons cited before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, the Ld.AR submitted that at the relevant point of time, the wife of the assessee was suffering from cancer and she eventually passed away on 07-01-2023, due to which the assessee suffered mental and emotional distress leading to delay in filing of the appeal. The assessee therefore had a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal within the due time. He further submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and, therefore, humbly prayed that in the interest of justice, the delay may be condoned and an opportunity may be granted to the assessee to represent and substantiate his case before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC by filing the requisite details/documents.

6.

The Ld.DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC.

4 ITA No. 1586/PUN/2026 7. We have heard the Ld. representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the Ld.AO has completed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act by making addition(s) of – i) Rs. 80,335/- on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act and ii) Rs. 65,60,000/- on account of income from Long Term Capital Gain. The Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on account of delay in filing of the appeal, without considering the assessee‟s case on merits. Before us, Ld.AR has submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal was not intentional, but resulted owing to the reasons cited in the preceding paragraphs. He has therefore, humbly prayed that since the assessee has a strong case on merits, in the interest of justice, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC may be directed to decide the assessee‟s appeal afresh on merits, after condoning the delay in filing of the appeal.

8.

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.

9.

We find that 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

5 ITA No. 1586/PUN/2026 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."

10.

We also find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- 26311/2024, order dt. 31-01-2025 has held that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal.

11.

In the light of the decision(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), we hereby set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before him and decide the appeal of the assessee on merits and as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the parties. Needless to say, the assessee shall comply with the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and make his submissions before him on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, unless required for the sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The effective grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

12.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 28-08-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (RAMA KANTA PANDA) (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे/Pune; Tadepalli Naga Digitally signed by Tadepalli Naga Murali Mohan दिन ांक/Dated : 28-08-2026 Murali Mohan Date: 2026.08.28 15:12:07 +05'30' TNMM

6 ITA No. 1586/PUN/2026 आिेश की प्रदिदिदप अग्रेदिि / Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीि र्थी / The Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 2. 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, „A‟ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईि / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीिीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →