TOUSIF MOHAMEDGOUS BAGANIKAR,SANGLI vs. ITO WARD-2, SANGLI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH: SMC BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.2767/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Tousif Mohamedgous ITO Ward 2, Baganikar, Aaykar Bhawan, GAT No 777/7/8, vs. Opp;Birnale college, At post Budgaon-416416, Sangli-416416, Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN.NO. AYSPB3343B (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None. For Revenue : Shri. Manish Mehta.JCIT. Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 29.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2026 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER The Assessee has filed an appeal against the ex-parte order of CIT(A)/ NFAC passed u/sec 144 r.w.s147 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 filing the appeal and sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has filed the return of income for A.Y.2017-18 disclosing a total loss of Rs.3,60,396/-.The Assessing Officer (A.O) has received information from insight portal that the assessee has made cash deposits in the bank account and they are not reflected in the return of income filed. The A.O has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice u/sec 148 of the Income Tax Act and subsequently,

ITA.No.2767/PUN/2025 Tousif Mohamedgous Baganikar

issued notice u/sec 142(1) of the Act to substantiate the sources of cash deposits and there was no compliance. Whereas the A.O based on the information available on record invoked the provisions of section 144 of the Act and made addition of unexplained explained cash deposits u/sec69A of the Act of Rs.38,63,990/- and assessed the total income of Rs,35,03,590/- and passed the order u/sec147 r.w.s144 of the Act dated 25.03.2022. 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 appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 4. Heard the Ld.DR submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie, the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the facts that there is no proper compliance by the assesse in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the delay in filling the appeal was not explained with the reasonable cause and the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the addition made by the A.O and there could be various reasons for no proper compliance. Whereas the affidavit and application U/sec 249(3) of the Act for condonation of delay of in filling the appeal was not filed before the CIT(A) by the assessee. Hence, considering the facts, circumstances and principles of natural justice, shall

ITA.No.2767/PUN/2025 Tousif Mohamedgous Baganikar

provide with one more opportunity to the assessee to file the application/ affidavit for condonation of delay before the CIT(A) explaining the sufficient and reasonable cause and the CIT(A) should fallow a pragmatic approach for condonation of delay and in accordance with the provisions of law. Accordingly, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate the delay condonation and deal the matter afresh in accordance with the law. 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. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026. Sd/- (PAVANKUMARGADALE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated: 30th June 2026

Copy of the Order forwarded to:- 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. PCIT concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, SMC Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. By Order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune.