What did the Tribunal hold?

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

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 1266 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to reasonable cause, including COVID restrictions and reliance on tax consultants.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condonable due to reasonable cause. Whether the issues on merit should be adjudicated by the CIT(A).

Nazim Riazuddin Saiyed, Turquoise… vs Assessment Unit | ITAT Pune 2026

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Doshi - AR

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

Hearing: 23.04.2026Pronounced: 04.05.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2020-21 is directed against the order dated 31.12.2025 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 Intimation Order dated 30.11.2021 passed u/s.143(1)(a) 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 a delay of 1266 days. Assessee has demonstrated that the same has arisen due to ‘reasonable cause’ and only requested for granting one more opportunity to 2 Nazim Riazuddin Saiyed

go before ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of the issues on merit. He also referred to ITA No. 287/PUN/2026 dt. 17.03.2026 passed in assessee’s own case where similar delay in filing of appeal for Assessment Year 2019-20 has been condoned and issues raised were restored to Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. On the other hand, Ld.DR did not object to the request made by ld. Counsel for the assessee.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Appeal preferred by assessee before Ld.CIT(A) is delayed by 1266 days. Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay. On going through the submissions filed by the assessee before us as well as ld.CIT(A) explaining the reasons for delay, we are satisfied that due to covid restrictions and dependency on tax consultants 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 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 1266 days in filing of the appeal before Ld.CIT(A).

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 parties, we deem it proper to restore the issues on merits back to the file ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. In 3 Nazim Riazuddin Saiyed

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 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.

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

Order pronounced on this 04th day of May, 2026. (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ंक / Dated : 04th May, 2026. Satish

Satish Kumar Madishetty 4 Nazim Riazuddin Saiyed

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,

////

NAZIM RIAZUDDIN SAIYED,TURQUOISE NYATI EMPIRE KHARADI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 4(4) PUNE, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE, PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Latest GST High Court judgments