What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 142 days 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.

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for being barred by limitation due to a delay of 142 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to reasonable cause, specifically medical issues faced by his brother-in-law.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was caused by a reasonable cause. Whether the issues on merit should be adjudicated by the CIT(A) after condoning the delay.

Nilesh Firke vs ITO | s.250 | ITAT Pune 2026

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Abhilash Hiran

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl, DR (Through virtual)

Hearing: 22.04.2026Pronounced: 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.234/PUN/2026 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Nilesh Ramchandra Firke, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Flat No. D-502, Vardhaman Ward 13-(2), Pune Dreams, SR No. 226/227, Kaspate Wasti, Wakad, Pune – 411 057 PAN : AANPF5484E Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Abhilash Hiran Revenue by : Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl. CIT-DR (Through virtual) Date of hearing : 22.04.2026 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 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 14.01.2026 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the

2 ITA No.234/PUN/2026 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Nilesh Ramchandra Firke,

Assessment Order dated 06.03.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 read with section 144B of the Act.

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 delay of 142 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. Appeal preferred before Ld.CIT(A) was delayed by 142 days. Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay. On going through the submissions and affidavit filed 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’s brother-in-law there was delay in filing of appeal before Ld.CIT(A). Considering the ‘reasonable cause preventing the assessee from filing the 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

3 ITA No.234/PUN/2026 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Nilesh Ramchandra Firke,

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 142 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, 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 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

4 ITA No.234/PUN/2026 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Nilesh Ramchandra Firke,

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 Satish Kumar Madishetty Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.04.27 17:38:51 +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

NILESH FIRKE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD- 13(2), PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments