K J INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, C.C-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2027/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 June 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders, directing the assessee to present its reasons for the delay to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was instructed to pass a fresh order after considering these submissions.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) with significant delays for multiple assessment years. The CIT(A) dismissed these appeals due to the lack of a 'sufficient cause' explanation for the delay.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the non-condonation of delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A). Without prejudice, issues regarding penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and rectification under Section 154 were also raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 271(1)(c),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT-DR

PER ASTHA CHANDRA, J.M.:

The captioned three appeals are directed against the separate order(s) of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-11 [“CIT(A)”], u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”), dt. 05-12-2025 for AY. 2009-10, dt. 03-12-2025 for AY. 2010-11 and dt. 26-06-2025 for AY. 2012-13. Since common issues are involved, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2.

In all the appeals, the assessee has challenged non-condonation of delay in filing of the appeals by the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. Without prejudice, in ITA No. 109/PUN/2026 (for AY. 2009-10) and ITA No. 110/PUN/2026 (for AY. 2010-11), the assessee has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs. 7,34,410/- and Rs. 13,02,296/- respectively u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”), without specifying the correct limb. In ITA

2 K J Infrastructure Projects India Private Limited (batch appeals)

No. 2027/PUN/2025 for AY. 2012-13, the assessee has challenged the rectification order passed by the Ld.AO u/s. 154 of the Act, rectifying the assessment order thereby reducing the depreciation by disallowing claim of Rs.1,41,74,711/- and increasing the assessed income to Rs.12,28,96,821/-.

3.

At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that all the three appeals have been filed with a delay before the Ld.CIT(A). There was a delay of 252 days in filing of appeal in ITA No. 109/PUN/2026 (for AY. 2009-10) and ITA No. 110/PUN/2026 (for AY. 2010-11). ITA No. 2027/PUN/2025 (for AY. 2012- 13) was filed with a delay of 2179 days. He submitted that during the appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee failed to offer any explanation for delay in filing of the appeal. The Ld.CIT(A) has therefore, dismissed all the above appeal(s) of the assessee on account of delay in filing of the appeals as no „sufficient cause‟ has been shown by the assessee for such delay. The Ld.AR submitted that delay in filing of the appeal was not intentional, but occurred owing to certain unavoidable circumstances. He, therefore, humbly prayed that the assessee may be given an opportunity to offer explanation for the delay before the Ld.CIT(A) by filing the requisite details/documents in support of its claim.

4.

Under these circumstances, we deem it fit, in the interest of justice and without getting into the merits of the issues involved to set aside the impugned order(s) of the Ld.CIT(A) in all the above appeals and direct the assessee to make its submissions before the Ld.CIT(A) stating therein the reasons which led to the delay in filing of the said appeals. The Ld.CIT(A) shall pass the fresh order as per fact and law as he may deem fit and appropriate considering the assessee‟s submissions. Accordingly, the

3 K J Infrastructure Projects India Private Limited (batch appeals)

grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, all the above three appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 16-06-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (RAMA KANTA PANDA) (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 16-06-2026 Digitally signed by Tadepalli Naga Tadepalli Naga Murali Mohan TNMM Murali Mohan Date: 2026.06.17 10:57:22 +05'30'

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, „A‟ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →