ABHIJIT RAMESH ZOPE,DEEPNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2 1, JALGAON

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE, BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA No.706/PUN/2026 Assessment Year : 2019-20 Abhijit Ramesh Zope, ITO, Ward 2(1), New F Tyre 246 Old B J Market, Deepnagar Tal Jalgaon-425002, Bhusawal, Vs. Maharashtra. Jalgaon-425307, Maharashtra. PAN-ABJPZ5891N Appellant Respondent : Assessee by Shri Sarthak Chopda (Virtual) : Revenue by Shri Madhukar Anand, JCIT (Virtual) : Date of hearing 04.05.2026 : Date of pronouncement 06.05.2026 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the NFAC/CIT(A) passed u/sec 250 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and sustaining the addition (i) unexplained investment u/sec 69 of the Act and (ii) salary income made by the Assessing Officer. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has not filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2019-20 and as per the information received by the Assessing Officer (A.O) the assessee has purchased the immovable property in the FY 2018-19. The AO has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and

ITA No.706/PUN/2026 Abhijit Ramesh Zope, Deepnagar issued notice u/sec 148A(b)of the Act and there was no compliance. Subsequently, the notice u/sec 142(1) was issued and there was also no compliance to the notice, but the assessee in respect of the show cause notice issued on 16.08.2024 has filed the partial information on 26.08.2024 explaining the sources of acquisition of the property. The Assessing Officer dealt on the information on record and the explanations and was not satisfied with the details and invoked provisions of Section 144 of the Act and made addition of Rs. 10,20,000/- as unexplained investment u/sec 69 of the Act and similarly, salary income of Rs. 32,323/- and assessed the total income of Rs.10,52,323/- and passed the order u/sec 147 r.w.s. 144 and 144B of the Act dated 19.12.2024.

ITA No.706/PUN/2026 Abhijit Ramesh Zope, Deepnagar 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie, the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no proper compliance by the assessee in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the delay in filling the appeal was not explained with reasonable cause. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging additions made by the Assessing Officer and there could be various reasons for no proper compliance. Whereas the assessee in Form.No.35 made a request for condonation of delay in filling the appeal and dealt by the CIT(A). We considering the facts, provisions and the condonation of delay request, we are of the opinion there is a reasonable cause in filing of the appeal with delay and there is no benefit derived in causing delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693, has held that the following principles must be kept in mind while considering the application for condonation of delay; (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 cause 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 encapsulate 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

ITA No.706/PUN/2026 Abhijit Ramesh Zope, Deepnagar 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 litigation. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, is representation 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.” 6. The Hon'ble supreme court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji & others (167 ITR 471) (SC) has observed as under :

“ The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting s. 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on "merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice— that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the "State" is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact, experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherent bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file- pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community does not deserve a litigant non grata status. The

ITA No.706/PUN/2026 Abhijit Ramesh Zope, Deepnagar Courts, therefore, have to be informed of the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression "sufficient cause". So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even-handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits.” 7. We respectfully follow the observations and ratio of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited(supra) and find that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) by the assessee is supported with sufficient cause and therefore pragmatic approach should have been considered for condonation of delay. Accordingly, we direct the Ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay. Further considering the principles of natural justice, the assessee shall be provided with one more opportunity of hearing to substantiate the case along with the evidences and explanations . Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal. And the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 06th May, 2026. Order pronounced on this day of Sd/- Sd/- DIPAK P. RIPOTE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) पुणे/ Pune; दिनांक/ Dated :06th May, 2026. Abhishek

ITA No.706/PUN/2026 Abhijit Ramesh Zope, Deepnagar आिेशकीप्र्ल्पअगे्े र/ Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्/ The Appellant. 1. प्यर्/ The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िभागीयप्र्न्ि, आयकरअपीलीयअ्िकरण, “SMC” बें, 4. पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गार्फ़ाइल/ Guard File. 5. //True copy// आिेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

Assistant Registrar, आयकरअपीलीयअ्िकरण, पुणे/ ITAT, Pune.