NAIM ADBUL KARIM SHAIKH,SAMBHAJI NAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.952/PUN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Naim Abdul Karim Shaikh, Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), At Post Borsar, Vaijapur, Aurangabad. Chh. Sambhajinagar- 423703. PAN : CCLPS4888K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ashutosh Dhoot (Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Pramod Shahakar Date of hearing : 11.05.2026 Date of pronouncement 13.05.2026 : आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 01.12.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income on 27.03.2018 declaring income of Rs.5,29,780/-. However, the ITR-V was not sent to the CPC, therefore, the return was marked as invalid. On

2 ITA No.952/PUN/2026 the basis of information that the assessee had declared undisclosed income of Rs.38,000/- while filing Form No.1 as per IDS Scheme, 2016 for assessment year 2011-12 and assessment year 2013-14 and Form No.2 was issued to the assessee and the assessee was required to pay the due taxes and submit the details in Form No.3 along with proof of payment within the due date. The assessee could not make payment of the due taxes and did not file Form No.3, therefore, the undisclosed income of Rs.38,000/- declared by the assessee under IDS Scheme, 2016 and the income of Rs.5,29,780/- declared in his ITR which is held as invalid by CPC, is chargeable to tax for the year under consideration, therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the IT Act and after completing the procedure of section 148A, notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 21.07.2022. The assessee in response to above notice furnished return declaring income of Rs.5,67,780/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A of Rs.1,50,000/-. However, the return was furnished beyond the period allowed to the assessee. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2), 142(1) and show cause notice respectively were issued to the assessee. Since the assessee could not produce evidence in support of deduction of

3 ITA No.952/PUN/2026 Rs.1,50,000/-, the same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, vide order dated 04.05.2023 the assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining income of Rs.7,17,780/- as against the income of Rs.5,29,780/- returned by the assessee in original return of income. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.1,50,000/- being disallowance of deduction under Chapter VI-A of the IT Act and addition of Rs.38,000/- on which tax was not paid under IDS Scheme, 2016. 3. Being aggrieved with the above action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without condoning the delay of 327 days in filing the appeal before him. 4. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the copy of application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit which was furnished before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. In this regard, we find that it

4 ITA No.952/PUN/2026 is the submission of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for not furnishing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC within the time limit prescribed under the Act. In this regard, it was contended that the original consultant could not provide correct professional advise due to which the appeal could not be furnished within the time limit. When the appellant approached another consultant, he advised to file first appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with delay condonation application which was immediately followed by the assessee. It was therefore requested by the assessee to condone the delay in filing of first appeal. 6. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to his file with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to produce relevant documents, evidences and submissions, if any, in

5 ITA No.952/PUN/2026 support of grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 13th day of May, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 13th May, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.05.14 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 15:03:22 +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.