RAVIKANT BALKRISHNA MATHE,,PUNE vs. THE ITO WARD 10(3), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 359/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 295 days, finding sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal restored the issues back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty order, but the appeal before the CIT(A) was delayed by 295 days. The assessee explained the delay was due to their tax consultant misplacing the penalty file. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal without appreciating the facts and circumstances. The primary issue is the condonation of delay to allow the appeal to be heard on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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 28.11.2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) arising out of Penalty Order dated 27.04.2018 passed u/s.271(1)(c) 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.

We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. We observe that assessee is an individual carrying the business of Ironing clothes and return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 has been filed on 28.08.2015

2 Ravikant Balkrishna Mathe

declaring income of Rs.18,56,110/-. Ld. Assessing Officer vide order 27.04.2018 concluded the penalty proceedings u u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that assessee has concealed the particulars of income. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) challenging the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. The appeal before ld.CIT(A) was delayed by 295 days. We find that assessee has filed an Affidavit explaining the delay by stating that the penalty file has been misplaced by the assessee’s earlier Tax Consultant and the assessee had to change the Tax Consultant upon non-representation by the Tax Consultant, resulting in filing of appeal with delay. Ld.CIT(A) despite reproducing the Affidavit/reasons in page 7 and 8 of the impugned order has not condoned the delay holding that it is not a fit case to exercise the judicial discretion to condone the delay, eventually dismissed the appeal in limine. Now the assessee has approached this Tribunal contending that ld.CIT(A) erred in refusing to condone the delay with appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

1 We have carefully perused the explanation tendered by the assessee in support of delay. Upon a comprehensive appraisal of the facts, we find that the delay cannot be attributed as deliberate inaction or to any lack of bonafides on the part of the assessee. Perusal of the circumstances demonstrate that the default occurred due to reasons beyond the assessee's control and not on account of any negligence. In our considered view, assessee has satisfactorily established the existence of "sufficient cause" for the delay in preferring the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. We therefore condone the delay of 295 days before ld.CIT(A) placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji

3 Ravikant Balkrishna Mathe

& Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 07th May, 2026. Satish

4 Ravikant Balkrishna Mathe

Satish Kumar Madishetty 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 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →