DHARMENDRA DEVIDAS MAGARE,JALGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(3), JALGAON, JALGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2925/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 March 2026AY 2021-224 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 153 days, finding reasonable cause due to the assessee's medical problems. The issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for being barred by limitation due to a 153-day delay. The assessee claimed the delay was due to medical issues and sought condonation.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable due to medical reasons and whether the appeal should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Kawadia
For Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore
Hearing: 18.03.2026Pronounced: 27.03.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “ A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2925/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Dharmendra Devidas Magare Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mahila Mandal Madhyamik Ward 1(3), Jalgaon Vidyalay, Chopada, Jalgaon, Maharashtra - 425107 PAN : ABLPM0339E Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Vinay Kawadia (Through Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore Addl.CIT (Through Virtual) Date of hearing : 18.03.2026 Date of pronouncement : 27.03.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2021-22 is directed against the order dated 15.10.2025 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 Assessment Order dated 26.12.2022 passed u/s.143(3) read with section 144B of the Act.

ITA No.2925/PUN/2025 Dharmendra Devidas Magare

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 delay of 153 days. Assessee has demonstrated that the same has arisen due to ‘reasonable cause’ and that the assessee was passing through medical issues. Only request is made to condone the delay before ld.CIT(A) and giving 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 me. We note that the assessee is an individual and filed regular return of income for AY 2021-22 on 15.02.2022 declaring income of Rs.9,53,740/- along with exempt income at Rs.54,50,000/-. After selecting the case for complete scrutiny and issuance of valid notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, Ld.AO concluded the proceedings assessing income at Rs.68,12,740/- after making additions of Rs.58,59,000/-. Assesse preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) but the same was delayed by 153 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

ITA No.2925/PUN/2025 Dharmendra Devidas Magare for delay, we are satisfied that due to medical problems faced by the asseseee 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) with 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 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 153 days in filing of the appeal before Ld.CIT(A).

4.

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

ITA No.2925/PUN/2025 Dharmendra Devidas Magare 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.

5.

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

Order pronounced on this 27th day of March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ंक / Dated : 27th March, 2026. Satish 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, “A” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” 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 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →