NIRMALA DINESH JAIN,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, RATNAGIRI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2348/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to substantiate her case.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The assessee had filed a rectification application regarding tax deposit issues and sought to present her case before the appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be granted an opportunity to present her case before the appellate authority after the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, and if the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B Budruk
Hearing: 07.04.2026Pronounced: 07.05.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) arising out of Assessment Order dated 25.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. When the appeal called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. DR and available material on record.

3.

Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 133 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has submitted an Affidavit explaining the delay by stating that she filed

2 Nirmala Dinesh Jain

Rectification application before the ld. Assessing Officer and awaiting the outcome. Thereafter, since the rectification proceedings were taking considerable time, she was advised to file an appeal before this Tribunal. She submitted that delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but purely inadvertent and caused by genuine and reasonable circumstances. On due consideration of the averments made in the Affidavit, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We therefore adopting justice oriented approach and 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 133 days before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

4.

We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. We observe that ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. We observe that assessee filed the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring income of Rs.53,44,060/-. Assessee during the previous A.Y. 2016-17 disclosed Rs.30.00 lakhs under the Income Declaration Scheme for A.Yrs. 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. Total tax liability is Rs.13.50 lakhs however Rs.3,37,500/- is being reflected on the portal. It is the submission of the assessee that she has wrongly deposited the tax under different head but lateron corrected the challan at the time of assessment proceedings. It is also a fact that assessee filed the Rectification application which is stated to be pending.

3 Nirmala Dinesh Jain

5.

Under the given facts and circumstances and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate her case before the First Appellate Authority. We therefore restore the issue back to the file ld. CIT (A) for necessary adjudication. 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 to be filed by 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. Findings of the ld.CIT(A) are set aside and effective Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced on this 07th day of May, 2026. (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 07th May, 2026. Satish Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.05.07 15:26:38 +05'30'

4 Nirmala Dinesh Jain

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

////

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →