SHIVRAJ DILIP PATIL,SATARA vs. ITO WARD-1 , SATARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3006/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 April 2026AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the 330-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal restored the issues on merits back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for being barred by limitation due to a 330-day delay. The delay was attributed to the assessee's medical issues related to COVID-19.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condonable on the grounds of reasonable cause. Whether the issues on merits should be adjudicated by the CIT(A) after condoning the delay.

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 BENCHES “B”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl, DR (Through virtual)
Hearing: 23.04.2026Pronounced: 24.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.3006/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Shivraj Dilip Patil, Vs. Income Tax Officer, - Plot No. D-530, Gala No.1, Ward 1, Satara Shaniwar Peth, Karad, Tal –Karad, Dist- Satara, Pune – 415 110 PAN : BEWPP2030L Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare (Through virtual) Revenue by : Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl. CIT-DR (Through virtual) Date of hearing : 23.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 24.04.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2013-14 is directed against the order dated 04.11.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act,

2 ITA No.3006/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shivraj Dilip Patil, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 02.05.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 read with section 144B of the Act.

2.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation as the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 330 days. Assessee has demonstrated that the same has arisen due to ‘reasonable cause’ and only requested for granting one more opportunity to go before ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of the issues on merit. Ld.DR did not object to the request made by ld. Counsel for the assessee. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessee is an individual and against the assessment order for Assessment year 2013-14, appeal preferred before Ld.CIT(A) was delayed by 330 days. Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay. On going through the submissions by the assessee before us as well as Ld.CIT(A) explaining the reasons for delay, we are satisfied that due to medical problems faced by the assessee who was infected by Corona and faced medical issues there was delay in filing of appeal before Ld.CIT(A). Considering the ‘reasonable cause preventing the assessee from filing the

3 ITA No.3006/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shivraj Dilip Patil, appeal before Ld.(CIT(A) within the statutory time limit and also observing that the delay is not intentional and assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal with a delay, we in light of 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 330 days in filing of the appeal before Ld.CIT(A). 4. So far as merits of the case are concerned, we find that ld.CIT(A) has not decided the issues raised in the instant appeal on merits, therefore considering the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the sides, we deem it proper to restore the issues on merits back to the file ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the issue, the issues raised in the instant appeal are being remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A). Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and consider the documents/evidences to be filed by the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is directed to update email and contact details

4 ITA No.3006/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shivraj Dilip Patil, on the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Finding of the Ld.CIT(A) is set aside and Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 24th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ंक / Dated : 24th April, 2026. Ashwini

Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.04.27 18:03:06 +05'30'

5 ITA No.3006/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shivraj Dilip Patil, 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 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →