SUHAS BHARGAV PARANJPE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13(3), PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1047/PUN/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 SUHAS BHARGAV Vs. INCOME TAX PARANJPE OFFICER WARD 13(3) 5, GURUPRASAD APARTMENT, 212/42, AAYKAR SADAN, SADASHIV PETH BODHI TOWERS, RAMBAG COLONY., SALISBURY PARK. PUNE-411030, PUNE-411037, MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA PAN- ABIPP3243P Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Suhas Kulkarani.AR Revenue by : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT (Virtual) Date of hearing : 21-05-2026 Date of pronouncement : 03-06-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of NFAC/CIT(A) passed u/sec 143(1) and 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 filling the appeal and the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the partial denial of deduction u/sec10(10AA) of the Act by the A O/CPC. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an employee of Bank Of Baroda and has filed the return of

ITA No.1047/PUN/2026 Suhas Bhargav Paranjpe income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 14.07.2017 after claiming the deduction/ exemption u/sec 10(10AA) of the Act in respect of leave encashment received at the time of retirement. And the return of income was processed under the u/sec 143(1) of the Act by restricting the claim to the extent of Rs.3,00,000/ and the balance amount was disallowed vide order dated 31.10.2017. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) find that there is a delay in filling the appeal and the assessee has not filed/explained the sufficient reasonable cause for the delay and the CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not considered the facts that the assessee has received the A.O order and has filed the appeal before appellate authorities and the delay was not a wanton act but the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee and filed the affidavit of the assessee explaining the reasonable cause. Further the Ld.AR submitted that CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO/CPC restricting the leave encashment to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/- received at the time of retirement instead of allowing total exemption of actual amount received which is much below the statutory limit of Rs.25,00,000/- as prescribed under section10(10AA) of the Act and the CBDT Notification No.31/2023 dated 24.05.2023 enhancing the exemption limit to Rs.25,00,000/-. The Ld.AR substantiated the submissions

ITA No.1047/PUN/2026 Suhas Bhargav Paranjpe with the factual paper book and judicial decisions and prayed for allowing the appeal. Per Contra, the Ld.DR supported the order of CIT(A).

ITA No.1047/PUN/2026 Suhas Bhargav Paranjpe (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 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 :

ITA No.1047/PUN/2026 Suhas Bhargav Paranjpe “ 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 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 and we condone the delay. Therefore, considering the facts, circumstances, submissions and principles of natural justice, we shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case with evidences and information Accordingly, We set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issue to the file of the Assessing

ITA No.1047/PUN/2026 Suhas Bhargav Paranjpe officer to adjudicate afresh on merits and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information. And the grounds of appeal of the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 03rd day of June, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- MANISH BORAD PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated :03rd June, 2026. Abhishek mohan आिेश की प्रतितितप अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीि र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. तिभ गीय प्रतितनति, आयकर अपीिीय अतिकरण, “SMC” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इि / Guard File. 5. //True Copy//

आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

Assistant Registrar, आयकर अपीिीय अतिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune