VIJAY NARAYAN GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 9(1), AKURDI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 658/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 June 2026AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause. It further set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, directing a speaking order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was filed with a significant delay due to personal and family medical issues, as well as financial hardships and a frozen bank account. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits due to the assessee's non-compliance on multiple hearing dates.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable and whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 68,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri Sudin Sabnis, CA
For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde,CIT-DR
Hearing: 10.06.2026Pronounced: 29.06.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 is against the order dated 15.02.2024 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 arising out of Assessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 r.w.s.144B of the Act.

2.

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 653 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons attributed to the delay. Main reasons for delay are stated to be (i) dependent on the Tax Consultants; (ii) assessee and family members suffered post covid complications; (iii) assessee’s wife diagnosed with cancer; (iv) death of assessee’s mother and (v) financial hardships. Further, in the month of September, 2025 when assessee went to withdraw funds for medical expenses, he came to know that his bank account was frozen by the Income Tax Department. On due consideration of all the said reasons, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. We find that the delay is not intentional and therefore placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, 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 Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 653 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“Erroneous Additions to Fixed Assets beyond Scope of Limited Scrutiny in the course of assessment proceedings. 1. The Ld. Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") has erred in law and on facts in proposing additions to fixed assets for A.Y. 2015-16, despite the proceedings being initiated under limited scrutiny, wherein the issue raised by the Ld. AO in the notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("IT Act") pertained to interest expenditure and no issue relating to fixed assets and hence was not within the scope of such limited scrutiny Addition to fixed assets and unsecured loans based on mere change in nomenclature 2. The Ld. AO, in the order passed under section 143(3) read with section 263 of the IT Act, has erred in law and on facts in making additions to fixed assets, as well as to the unsecured loans. The Ld. AO has failed to appreciate that there is no new addition in the fixed assets during the relevant financial year, and the unsecured loans represent amounts brought forward from earlier assessment years which were already shown as sundry creditors in the balance sheet of previous year and that the matter merely involved a change in nomenclature, regrouping, reclassification, without any corresponding unexplained inflow of funds or accretion to fixed assets or any fresh credit during the relevant assessment year. The Ld. AO has erred in making additions to the opening balance of the unsecured loans 3. The Id. AO has erred in law and on facts in proposing to make additions in respect of balances appearing as opening balances in the books of account for the A.Y. 2015-16, whereas such balances represent amounts brought forward from earlier assessment years and do not constitute any fresh credit or introduction of funds during the relevant assessment year, it is well settled that no addition can be made u/s 68 of the IT Act in respect of closing balances carried forward from preceding assessment years. The Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in passing order without reference to merits 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ("CIT(A)") has erred in law and on facts in disposing of the appeal in a non-speaking manner without adjudicating the issues on merits, inasmuch as the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 u/s 250 of the IT Act and has been passed in violation of the mandatory requirements of section 250(6) of the IT Act, which obligates the appellate authority to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision, the failure to examine and decide each ground of appeal on merits amounts to non-application of mind and renders the appellate order unsustainable in law. Interest u/s 234B and 234C of the IT Act 5. The Ld. AO erred by levying the interest u/s 234B and 234C of the IT Act on the additional tax liability arrived by making additions in the Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the IT Act. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.”

4.

With the assistance of both the sides, we have gone through the record and find that the assessee failed to make any submission/compliance before ld.CIT(A) on the dates fixed for hearing on 21.10.2022, 17.11.2022, 12.12.2022, 19.07.2023 and 18.01.2024 resulting into dismissal of the assessee’s appeal in limine and ld.CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds on merit.

5.

Before this Tribunal, ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for setting aside the issues in the instant appeal to ld.CIT(A) as the impugned order is passed exparte. Ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

6.

After hearing the parties, we notice that the assessee is an individual and assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 of the Act on 30.03.2022 making addition of Rs.15,32,13,281/- which was added to the assessee’s income at Rs.11,17,040/- vide assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 28.12.2017. Assessee challenged the additions by filing appeal before ld.CIT(A) but then due to continuous non-compliance on multiple occasions ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the issues on merit.

7.

Considering the factual matrix and the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and also observing that assessee has furnished various details in support of its grounds of appeal in the paper book running into 687 pages, we deem it appropriate to restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay). Assessee is directed to update email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assesssee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 29th day of June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 29th June, 2026. Satish Satish Kumar Madishetty Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.06.30 12:08:22 +05'30'

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “B” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

// True Copy // Assistant Registrar, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →