CHANDRAKANT ANANT SUTAR,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO CPC, KOLHAPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the reasonable cause of the wife's illness. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 58 days due to his wife's illness. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and whether the addition made under Section 69A was correct.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 23.10.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 27.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act.
The sole grievance of the assessee is that ld.CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing of appeal and further erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s.69A of the Act at Rs.1,73,00,290/-.
2 Chandrakant Anant Sutar
At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to illness of wife for long time (copy of medical certificate enclosed) during the first six months of financial year 2022-23 the assessee could not file the appeal before ld.CIT(A) within the prescribed time limit. He therefore prayed that in the interest of justice an opportunity may be provided to go before ld.CIT(A) for dealing with merits of the case.
On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and is claiming to have carry out the business sale of Auto Spare parts in the sole proprietary concern M/s. New Perfect Auto. Assessee has further claimed to be representative earning commission from Shriram Motors, Kagal for Gargoti Area. Assessment for A.Y. 2017-18 has been passed by NFAC u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act on 27.03.2022 wherein addition for unexplained cash deposit u/s.69A of the Act at Rs.1,73,00,290/- has been made. Assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) with delay of 58 days. Reasons for delay were furnished before ld.CIT(A) who however did not condone the delay and further confirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer.
Before us, prayer of the assessee is only for condoning the delay as the delay occurred before ld.CIT(A) due to ‘reasonable cause’ and affording one more opportunity to plead its grounds of appeal on merits. We have gone through the application for condonation of delay and the Medical Certificate placed on record indicates that assessee’s wife was ill during that period of time when assessee was required to file appeal before ld.CIT(A).
3 Chandrakant Anant Sutar
Considering the ‘reasonable cause’ 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) we condone the delay of 58 days in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) and without dwelling upon the merits of the case, restore the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication on merits of the case. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee and consider the documents/evidences to be filed by the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id 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. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 03rd of June, 2026. (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ंक / Dated : 03rd June, 2026. Satish Satish Kumar Madishetty 4 Chandrakant Anant Sutar
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.
The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “A” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,
////
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Jsw Cement Limited,Jajpur vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sreeshobi Enterprises vs. The Appellate AuthorityMadras · 16 Oct 2026
- S.T.Promotors vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
