AVIRAT MAHADEV KAPGATE ,PUNE vs. ITO WD-1 , BHANDARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 807/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 June 2026AY 2016-172 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, stating that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. It directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay in the earlier appeal and decide the matter on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 208 days. The assessee's earlier appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 327 days without condonation.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and if the appeal should be decided on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke
For Respondent: Shri Sandip Pawar, JCIT

आदेश /ORDER

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2016-17 on 27.05.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 30.01.2024.

2.

There was a delay of 208 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit citing the reasons for delay. We are convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay. Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. No assessee is going to gain by filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, delay condoned.

Findings and analysis:

3.

We have heard both the parties and perused the record. It is observed that the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee as

ITA No.807/PUN/2026

there was delay of 327 days without condoning the delay. The assessee had filed an affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A) of Mr. Yash Ghundiyal, Accountant who admitted that the assessee had handed over all the documents to him but he failed to file within time. We have read the affidavit of the assessee and are convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay. The assessee is an individual, we are of the considered opinion that the substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. No assessee is going to gain by filing the appeal belatedly. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal of the assessee on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall be allowed to file necessary documents and additional ground, if any.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th June, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated :29-06-2026 Ravi Kumar Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.06.30 15:47:00 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय 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 →