JITENDRA GAJANAN NAIK,JALGAON vs. ITO WARD 2(1) JALGAON, JALGAON

The brief facts of the case are that, the Assessing Officer (A.O) found that the assessee has made substantial cash deposits in bank account in F.Y.2014-15 and the assessee has not filed the return of income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 as per provisions of Section 139(1) of the Act. The A.O has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec 148A of the Act, The A.O provided ample opportunities to the assessee to explain such cash deposits in bank account but the assessee has not submitted any explanations and the AO has issued notice u/sec 148 of the Act. In compliance to the notice, the assessee has filed the information and details of the cash deposits. Whereas the AO found that there is a variation in the amounts and the assessee could not explain the sources of cash deposits to the extent of Rs. 6,81,343/- and finally assessed the total income and made addition of Rs.6,81,343/- and passed the order u/sec.147 r.w.s.144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act dated 08.02.2024. 3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) found that there is a delay of 165 days in filing the appeal and the assessee has not explained the sufficient reasons for the delay. He further did not condone the delay and dismissed the assessee’s appeal inlimine. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not considered the facts and valid reasons of the assessee as mentioned in the Form.No.35 and the delay in filling the appeal was neither deliberate nor wanton act, but the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has a good case on merits and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate with material evidences before the lower authorities. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

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 addition of unexplained money 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. Therefore, considering the facts, provisions and the condonation of delay request, and is of the opinion that 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). Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B. MadhuriGoud vrs. 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.

The Hon'ble supreme court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji& others (167 ITR 471) (SC) has observed as under :

Hence 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 the delay is condoned. 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, 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.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02nd July, 2026. PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Pune, Dated: 02nd July, 2026 Abhishek Mohan Abhishek Mohan Mohan Date: 2026.07.02 14:52:38 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अिीिार्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, “SMC” बेंच, पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गार्डफ़ाइि / Guard File. 5. //True File//