BHUTESHWAR SANBHAJI SHENDRE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD-4(4), NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 100/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 May 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before itself and before the CIT(A). Considering the assessee's circumstances and the lack of objection, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to delay and non-compliance. The assessee then filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay, explaining the cause.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and if the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR ‘SMC’ BENCH, NAGPUR

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Rachit Thakar
For Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Hearing: 17.03.2026Pronounced: 07.05.2026

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 01.09.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi arising out of Assessment Order dated 06.03.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 64 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. In support, assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the cause of delay.

3.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was delay of 13 days in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) and the same has not been condoned by ld.CIT(A) and appeal has been dismissed for non-prosecution. Only prayer is made to set aside the impugned order as proper opportunity of 2 Bhuteshwar Sanbhaji Shendre hearing was not granted and to restore the issues to the file of ld.CIT(A) affording one more opportunity.

4.

On due consideration of the submissions made by the assessee before ld.CIT(A) and before this Tribunal, I note that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Delay is not intentional and assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal with a delay. I therefore 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 64 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal as well as the delay before ld.CIT(A) and admit the appeal for adjudication.

5.

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I note that there was non-compliance from the side of assessee despite opportunity of hearing was granted on 02.05.2025, 14.05.2025 10.07.2025 and 26.08.2025 respectively resulting into dismissal of appeal. Relevant finding of ld.CIT(A) reads as under :

“7.3 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant failed to make any submission with respect to the grounds of appeal raised in the present appeal. Despite being provided with multiple opportunities, the appellant has remained non-compliant and has failed to discharge its primary onus to substantiate the grounds of appeal. Therefore, it is presumed that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal and does not have any documents, explanation and evidence to substantiate the grounds of appeal. The appellant has not furnished even a single piece of evidence to substantiate its stand in spite of giving sufficient opportunities. Therefore, in absence of any documentary evidences I do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant in the present. In view of the above, order of the AO making addition of Rs.39,65,600/- is 3 Bhuteshwar Sanbhaji Shendre confirmed and no relief can be granted to the appellant. Accordingly, all grounds of appeal are dismissed.”

6.

Even though the ld.CIT(A) has dealt with merits of the case, however considering the request made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, there being no objection from the side of ld. DR for restoration of the issues raised in the instant appeal and further observing that the assessee is an Agriculturist and is not well versed with the Taxation matters, I deem it appropriate to remit back the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. 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 decide in accordance with law. 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 accordance with law. Findings of the CIT(A)/NFAC are set aside and Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

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

Order pronounced on this 07th day of May, 2026. (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Nagpur/ दिन ांक / Dated : 07th May, 2026. Satish

4 Bhuteshwar Sanbhaji Shendre

Satish Kumar Madishetty 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, न गपुर SMC बेंच, 4. न गपुर / DR, ITAT, “Nagpur SMC Bench, Nagpur ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

////

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →