SAGAR UTTAM MANE ,SANGLI vs. ITO WD-3 , SANGLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 464/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 June 2026AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on sufficient cause, including COVID-19 restrictions and issues with tax consultancy. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in the business of supplying construction material, failed to file an income tax return. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- as unexplained income. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a significant delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to sufficient cause and whether the case should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 69A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Joshi, CA
For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Hearing: 20.05.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 14.11.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 03.12.2019 passed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of supply of construction material and no return of income has been filed by the assessee for the year under consideration. Based on the information that assessee made cash deposits in the savings accounts maintained with 2 Sagar Uttam Mane

Corporation Bank, Sangli and Federal Bank Ltd.to the tune of Rs.20,98,000/-; earned commission receipts of Rs.1,58,578/-; and also purchased a lant at Jaysinghpur jointly with other two owners for a consideration of Rs.75.00 lakhs and since the assessee has not filed any return of income, ld. Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped. Statutory notices u/s.148 and 142(1) of the Act served but there was no compliance on the part of assessee. Ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment and passed Best Judgment Assessment u/s.144 of the Act making addition of Rs.25,00,000/- as unexplained source of income u/s.69A of the Act. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but with delay of 1595 days. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. Now the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal contending that ld.CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay even when there was sufficient cause and also erred in not adjudicating the issue on merits.

3.

Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the affidavit and demonstrated the ‘reasonable cause’ which led to delay of 1595 days in filing of the appeal before ld.CIT(A). It is submitted that post assessment proceedings, covid-19 pandemic restrictions period. One of the partner’s wife was ailing with cardiac issue. Due to ignorance, e- mails by the authorities remained noticed. Improper advice by the Tax Consultant and searching for the qualified professional are the key reasons which led to delay. Delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. There exists ‘sufficient cause’ which prevented the assessee firm to file the appeal within the stipulated time. A 3 Sagar Uttam Mane

prayer is made to condone the delay and remit back the issues to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication.

4.

On the other hand, ld. DR opposed the contentions putforth by the ld. Counsel for the assessee.

5.

After hearing the rival parties and on harmonious reading of the averments made in the affidavit, we are of the view that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. We find that the delay is not intentional and therefore 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) condone the delay of 1595 days before ld.CIT(A) in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

6.

Considering the fact that ld.CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merits and also considering the facts in entirety, without dwelling upon the merits of the case the issues raised in the instant appeal are remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is directed to update email 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, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Impugned order of ld.

4 Sagar Uttam Mane

CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

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

Order pronounced on this 30th day of June, 2026. (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 30th June, 2026. Satish Satish Kumar Madishetty आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “SMC” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / 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 →