YOGESH MANOHAR SONAWANE,NASHIK MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO WARD 2(1) NASHIK, NASHIK MAHARASHTRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 711/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2026AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to prove service of the assessment order and did not rebut the assessee's claim of non-receipt. Therefore, there was a sufficient cause for the delay.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 331 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay, stating insufficient cause. The assessee claimed non-receipt of intimation from the Income Tax Department.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the condonation of delay without granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard and without considering the evidence submitted by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Aakash Parakh
For Respondent: Shri Madhukar Anand
Hearing: 04.05.2026Pronounced: 06.05.2026

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This is an appeal filed by assessee against the order u/s 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC) for A.Y 2018-19 on 18.12.2025, emanating from assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 15.03.2026. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the appellant’s application for condonation of delay without granting reasonable opportunity of being heard.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in rejecting the appeal without considering the Form No. 16 submitted by the appellant during the appellate proceedings.

2.

We have heard both the parties, perused the records. In this case Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 331 days in filing appeal by the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that there was no sufficient cause. Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the reasons given by the assessee in Yogesh Manohar Sonawane. form No. 35 for delay. Assessee had claimed that assessee had not received any intimation from the Income Tax Department.

Hence there was delay in filing the appeal.

3.

Ld. Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) appeared virtually and he was on rotational duty. Ld. DR has not brought on record evidence to prove that assessment order was served on the assessee. Ld. DR has not brought on record any document to negate the submission of the assessee reproduced by ld. CIT(A) in para 3.4 of the order u/s 250 of the Act. Ld. CIT(A) has also not bothered to verify the contention of the assessee. Thus, Department is not interested in bringing the facts on record.

4.

Assessee has submitted before ld. CIT(A) that he has not received any intimation from the department regarding assessment order. Since, revenue has not rebutted the contention of the assessee, we presume it to be correct. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) to CIT(A) for denovo adjudication, with a direction to condone the delay. Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary details before ld. CIT(A).

5.

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

Order pronounced on this 06th day of May, 2026. S (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; िदनांक / Dated : 06 May, 2026. KRK, Sr. PS Yogesh Manohar Sonawane.

आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant.

2.

""थ" / The Respondent.

3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब"च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड" फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / 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 →