SHAILESH SHRIKANT DINDORKAR,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 5, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2795/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 May 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remitted the issues back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, received salary income and income from the sale of immovable property but did not file a return of income. The Assessing Officer passed an ex-parte assessment order. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal after a delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the ex-parte assessment order passed without proper opportunity to the assessee is valid, and whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Deshpande
For Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar (virtual)
Hearing: 29.04.2026Pronounced: 19.05.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2020-21 is directed against the order dated 25.08.2025 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 10.02.2025 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 24 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reason which led to delay. On due consideration of the averments made in the affidavit, we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We note that the delay is not 2 Shailesh Shrikant Dindorkar

intentional and assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal with a delay. We therefore in light of 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 24 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessee is an individual employed with M/s. Clariant India Private Limited as well as M/s.Tata Consultancy Services Limited and received salary of Rs.73,67,287/- and also entered into transaction of sale of immovable property at Rs.33,50,000/-. However, the assessee did not file the return of income for the year under consideration. It is also stated salary and TDS details are reflected in Form 26AS. As regards the immovable property, it is stated that the assessee is only 50% owner and the benefit of cost of indexation has also not been allowed. It is also stated that benefit of tax deducted at source has also not been granted. In light of the above stated facts, we find merit in the contention raised by ld. Counsel for the assessee and deem it appropriate to remit back the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.JAO for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that ld. JAO shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and on due consideration of details shall decide in accordance with law. 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

3 Shailesh Shrikant Dindorkar

cause, failing which the ld.JAO shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Impugned order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

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

Order pronounced on this 19th day of May, 2026. (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 19th May, 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, “B” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” 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 →