SHRI EKVIRA SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(3), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 596/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 June 2026AY 2017-187 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of lack of technical knowledge was factually incorrect, as the President, who is a legal professional, had electronically filed the appeal before the CIT(A) and provided an email ID. The Tribunal found the delay to be inordinate and without sufficient cause, citing the assessee's past non-compliance and negligence.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 433 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to lack of technical knowledge and unawareness of the CIT(A)'s order, which was served electronically. The assessee is a cooperative society located in a rural area.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT is liable to be condoned on the grounds of lack of technical knowledge and unawareness of the order, considering the assessee's circumstances and past conduct.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250,Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

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

For Appellant: Shri Nithin Surana
For Respondent: Shri Arvind Renge

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order 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 AY 2017-18 on 03.09.2024, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 144 of the Act, dated 30.12.2019.

2.

In this case, there has been delay of 433 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee filed a petition for condonation of delay. The, same is reproduced hereunder : “1. This petition has reference to the appeal being filed before your honours. The appeal is against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 03.09.2024 under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. The order under section 250 confirms the additions made by the Income Tax Officer Ward 9(5), Pune (JAO) as per the order under section 144 of the Act dated 30.12.2019. In the said assessment order, the JAO had made an addition of Rs. 8,82,078/- in respect of cash deposited in the bank account

ITA No.596/PUN/2026

during the demonetization period and disallowed deduction under section 80P amounting to Rs. 1,48,976. 3. In response to the above order passed under section 250, the appeal before your honour should have been filed within sixty days from which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the Petitioner i.e. on or before 03.11.2024. However, the impugned appeal is filed on_.02.2026 with a delay of days. Reasons for condonation 4. The delay in filing the present appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional. The Petitioner had no effective knowledge of the disposal of the appeal by the learned CIT(A). The impugned order was served only through electronic mode. The Petitioner established in the rural areas of Pune district and is run by individuals with limited technological proficiency and no regular or effective access to email. Owing to these constraints, the Petitioner remained unaware of the passing of the impugned order within the prescribed period of limitation. 5. The Petitioner was made aware about the passing of the impugned order only when the Petitioner's banker contacted him regarding attachment of his bank account pursuant to recovery proceedings initiated by the Department on 26.12.2025. It was only upon such intimation from the bank that the Petitioner became aware of the existence of the said order.” Submission of Ld. AR:

3.

Ld. AR pleaded that the delay was on account of lack of knowledge of the Chairman of the assessee. Ld. AR requested to condone the delay. Ld. AR submitted that assessee situated in a rural area and hence, do not have facility for expert advice.

Submission of Ld. DR:

4.

Ld. DR strongly objected to the condonation of the delay.

Findings and analysis:

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records.

Basic Facts :

5.1 In this case, Assessee had not filed return of income for AY 2017-18 u/s 139 of the Act. The Assessing Officer had information regarding cash deposits made by Assessee during the demonetization period. Therefore, Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on 19.02.2018 asking Assessee to file return of income. The notice was duly served upon the Assessee through speed post. However, Assessee failed to comply the said

ITA No.596/PUN/2026

notice. Subsequently, Assessing Officer issued another notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 15.07.2019 which was duly served on the Assessee. In response to the said notice, Mr. Jayawant Yashwant Deshmukh, President of the Assessee Society attended and filed copy of return of income filed on 19.07.2019. Finally, assessment order was passed u/s 144 assessing the total income at Rs.10,31,050/-.

5.2 Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the assessment order vide order dated 03.09.2024. It is apparently clear only order of the Ld. CIT(A) that Assessee had not complied any notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A).

5.3 Aggrieved by the order u/s 250 of the Act dated 03.09.2024, the Assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal on 06.02.2026 with a delay.

Delay : 5.4 We have carefully studied the condonation petition filed by the Assessee. The relevant paragraphs of the condonation petition are reproduced hereunder : “1. This petition has reference to the appeal being filed before your honours. The appeal is against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) dated 03.09.2024 under section 250 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. The order under section 250 confirms the additions made by the Income Tax Officer Ward 9(5), Pune (JAO) as per the order under section 144 of the Act dated 30.12.2019. In the said assessment order, the JAO had made an addition of Rs. 8,82,078/- in respect of cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period and disallowed deduction under section 80P amounting to Rs. 1,48,976. 3. In response to the above order passed under section 250, the appeal before your honour should have been filed within sixty days from which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the Petitioner i.e. on or before 03.11.2024. However, the impugned appeal is filed on_.02.2026 with a delay of days. Reasons for condonation 4. The delay in filing the present appeal is neither deliberate nor intentional. The Petitioner had no effective knowledge of the disposal of the appeal by the learned CIT(A). The impugned order was served only through electronic mode. The Petitioner established in the rural areas of Pune district and is run by individuals with limited technological proficiency and no regular or effective access to email. Owing to these constraints, the Petitioner remained unaware of the passing of the impugned order within the prescribed period of limitation.

ITA No.596/PUN/2026

5.

The Petitioner was made aware about the passing of the impugned order only when the Petitioner's banker contacted him regarding attachment of his bank account pursuant to recovery proceedings initiated by the Department on 26.12.2025. It was only upon such intimation from the bank that the Petitioner became aware of the existence of the said order.”

5.5 Thus, it can be observed that the reason for delay as per Assessee is that Assessee do not have persons with technical knowledge.

6.

It is a fact that Assessee had filed return of income electronically beyond the time allowed under the Act. It is also observed that the Assessee had filed appeal electronically against the assessment order, in Form No,. 35. The Assessee had provided following email id in Form No. 35. ekvirasahkari@gmail.com.

7.

Thus, Assessee was having a valid email id which was mentioned in the Form No. 35. The Form No. 35 was electronically verified by the President of the Assessee, Mr. Jayawant Yashwant Deshmukh having PAN No. AFDPD9821N. Thus, the President of the Assessee Society is also having PAN and is a taxpayer. The President of the Assessee Society, Mr. Jayawant Yashwant Deshmukh is into legal profession. The other Managing Committee as per the return of income are as under : i. Y. S. Padwal, PAN No. : APMPP6754M ii. Sachin H. Deshmukh, PAN No. : AKEPD0825C iii. Ankush Yashwant Deshmukh, PAN No. : AECPD6444D iv. Suresh H. Gaikwad, PAN No. : AKNPG3403G

8.

In these facts, it is in-appropriate and factually incorrect on the part of the Assessee to claim that it did not have manpower having technical knowledge. Therefore, we are convinced that there was no sufficient cause for delay. In this context observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs Mg. Commit. Of Raghunathpur Nafar Academydated 13 September, 2013, (12) SCC 649 are reproduced hereunder : Quote, “15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

ITA No.596/PUN/2026

i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-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.

ITA No.596/PUN/2026

9.

Similarly, Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) has observed as under : Quote, “22. At this juncture, we are obliged to state that the persons who are nominated or inducted as members or chosen as Secretaries of the managing committees of schools are required to behave with responsibility and not to adopt a casual approach. It is a public responsibility and anyone who is desirous of taking such responsibility has to devote time and act with due care and requisite caution. Becoming a member of the committee should not become a local status syndrome. A statutory committee cannot remain totally indifferent to an order passed by the court and sleep like “Kumbhakarna”. The persons chosen to act on behalf of the Managing Committee cannot take recourse to fancy and rise like a phoenix and move the court. Neither leisure nor pleasure has anyroom while one moves an application seeking condonation of delay of almost seven years on the ground of lack of knowledge or failure of justice. Plea of lack of knowledge in the present case really lacks bona fide.” Unquote.

10.

In the case of the Assessee there is inordinate delay. The reasons cited are not sufficient cause. Assessee is a habitual person as Assessee had not filed return of income within time. Assessee had not complied notices issued by Ld. CIT(A).

11.

Assessee had claimed that it is situated in rural area and do not have requisite knowledge. It is a factually misleading claim as Assessee is situated in Pune District very close to Pune City, Lonawala City and Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. The distance of Karla from Lonavala is about 10 Kms. from Pimpri is 44 Kms. and from Pune is 60 Kms. Karla is a famous tourist place. The areas mentioned by us are urban areas having educational institutes, industries and as a result requisite professionals also. Therefore, claimed made by the Assessee is misleading. Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) has already observed that positions in the Managing Committee are not merely decorative post but carries responsibilities. In this case, the President of the Assessee had filed Form 35 electronically, means was aware about the facts that Assessee had filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and it was pending. In these facts, it was responsibilities of the Managing Committee to verify from the Income Tax Portal or the email id of the Assessee which mentioned in the Form 35 regarding the notices and status of the appeal. But it seems that Managing Committee was negligent and had not bothered to read the emails received. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances of the case,

ITA No.596/PUN/2026

we do not condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the ITAT. Accordingly, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed on account of delay.

12.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th June, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 12-06-2026 Ravi Kumar Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.06.15 13:09:44 +05'30'

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune S.No. Details Date Designation 1 Draft dictated on Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before the Second 3 JM/AM Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS Date on which the file goes to the Office 9 Superintendent 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →