JAYACHITRA SELVARAJ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, NEW PANVEL, RAIGARH

ITA 3020/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 May 2026AY 2013-201413 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for being filed with a significant delay. The assessee claimed the delay was due to non-receipt of notices and being a housewife with no tax knowledge. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay, leading to the dismissal.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially in cases of non-deliberate delay. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of delay without considering the merits, and whether the delay was justifiable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 151,Section 249(2)(b),Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Vincent Joseph
For Respondent: Shri Mukul Kulkarni (virtual)

PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM:

ITA No.3021/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.10.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2013-14 dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee on account of delay. ITA No.3020/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.10.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi confirming the penalty of Rs.18,02,500/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). For the sake of convenience, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2.

Facts of the case, i

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 24,918 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →