NIRMALA R. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD 5(5), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2063/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 May 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation. It decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case and evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file an income tax return for AY 2017-18, leading to an assessment under Section 144 with additions. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution. The assessee appealed to the ITAT, explaining a delay in filing.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee's appeal filed with a significant delay should be admitted, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication due to non-prosecution before the lower appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD

For Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Khule
Hearing: 18.03.2026Pronounced: 12.05.2026

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 09.07.2024 framed by Addl/JCIT(A)-3, Bengaluru arising out of Assessment Order dated 22.12.2019 passed u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

When the appeal called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. Even on the previous dates of hearing on 29.09.2025, 28.10.2025, 02.12.2025, 04.02.2026 and 17.03.2026, there was no representative from the side of assessee. I therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative.

3.

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this 2 Nirmala R Jain

Tribunal with a delay of 336 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay. On due consideration of the said reasons, I find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. I find that the delay is not intentional and therefore placing reliance on the 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 336 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

4.

I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record placed before me. I note that the assessee is an individual and has not filed the return for A.Y.2017-18. Based on the information available with the department under ‘operation clean money’, the assessee’s case has been selected for scrutiny for the reason that assessee has deposited substantial cash during the demonetization period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 in her account maintained with South Indian Bank, Bibwewadi. Ld. Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act making addition of Rs.7,35,000/- u/s.69A of the Act and Rs.24,959/- under the head income from other sources thereby assessing income at Rs.7,59,960/-. Assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A) but then failed to appear before ld.CIT(A) resulting into dismissal of the appeal.

3 Nirmala R Jain

5.

Now the assessee has approached the Tribunal contending that necessary details have been provided before the ld. Assessing Officer which were not considered.

6.

From perusal of the assessment order, prima-facie I find that assessee has furnished relevant information and made submissions. However, the assesee has not participated in the proceedings before First Appellate Authority which resulted into dismissal of appeal for non- prosecution. Considering the factual scenario, I deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the case, the issues raised in the instant appeal are remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Assessee is at liberty to adduce evidence/documents in support of its case in the denovo proceedings. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is directed to update email and contact detail 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. Impugned order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4 Nirmala R Jain

7.

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

Order pronounced on this 12th day of May, 2026. (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 12th May, 2026. Satish Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.05.12 15:45:07 +05'30'

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, “SMC” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

////

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →