BIJI JOHNSON,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3316/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had valid and sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal afresh.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file returns and respond to notices, leading to an ex-parte assessment order. The assessee claimed ignorance of e-proceedings and that the bank account used for addition belonged to a partnership firm, not them. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay. The underlying issue of the addition made by the AO also needs to be examined.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Jomon
For Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the order(s) of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AYs. 2015-16 and 2016-17, both dt. 29-10-2025. Since the facts are common, both these appeals were heard together and decided by the common order. We will treat appeal in ITA No. 3315/PUN/2025, AY. 2015-16 as a lead case.

2.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Ld.AR filed paper book, which contains affidavit of the assessee, copy of bank statement. However, admittedly these documents were never filed before the AO. Ld.AR submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal, though elaborate reasons were mentioned in Form-

35.

Ld.AR submitted that assessee had not received copy of the notices and copy of the assessment order as assessee’s email was not registered. Assessee became aware about the assessment order only when recovery proceedings were started by ITO. Then, assessee approached the ITO and realized about the assessment proceedings. Since assessee is not aware about e-proceedings of the Income Tax Department, assessee approached a Chartered Accountant, who re-set the password on Income Tax portal. Then, assessee could down load the assessment order. Therefore, there was delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Ld.AR submitted that one more opportunity may be provided to the assessee as even the assessment order is ex-parte and the income added does not belong to the assessee. Ld.AR submitted that the bank account on the basis of which the addition made actually pertains to partnership firm.

3.

Submission of Ld.DR: The Ld.DR relied on the order of the AO and the Ld.CIT(A).

4.

Findings and analysis:

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, assessee had not filed return of income for AY. 2015-16, based on the information received by the ITO from Panvel Urbank Co-operative Bank Ltd., regarding cash deposits, the ITO issued notice u/s. 148 of the Act, dt. 07-04-2022. However, there was no compliance of various notices issued by the AO. AO passed an ex-parte order, assessing the total income at Rs. 2,00,26,800/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee filed belated appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

4.1.

Ld.AR submitted before us that the account of the Panvel Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., does not belong to the assessee, but it belongs to partnership firm, Star Auto Parts, wherein assessee is one of the partners. This fact was not verified by the AO before passing the assessment order.

4.2.

We have perused the reasons for delay in filing appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). In this case, there were valid and sufficient reasons for delay.

4.3.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others Civil Appeal Nos.8183-8184 of 2013 vide order dated 13/09/2013 has laid down following principles for deciding Condonation Application:

Quote“15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.” Unquote.

Thus, the legal position discernible from the aforesaid decisions that the substantial justice is paramount consideration and pivotal. Respectfully following the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the afore said case, we are of the considered opinion that there were valid and sufficient reasons for delay. Hence, we direct the Ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) to the Ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the relevant details before the Ld.CIT(A).

5.

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

6.

Since the facts of the appeal in ITA No. 3316/PUN/2025 is identical to one as decided by us in ITA No.3315/Pun/2025 (supra) and, therefore, our findings in the said appeal, mutatis mutandis, would apply to this appeal also. Hence, this appeal is also treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29th May, 2026 (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 29-05-2026 TNMM

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपील र्थी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent

2.3.

The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune

4.

DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, ////

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →