MAHESH KUMAR NAGARAJAN,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE , PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2655/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 April 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing a justice-oriented approach. It restored all issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a proper opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was delayed by 184 days due to an employee leaving during Covid-19. The assessee failed to make proper compliance before the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order. The AO had made additions to the returned income, disallowing various claims.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and whether the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity before the CIT(A) due to ex-parte proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(2),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Ajinkya M
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Thripathi
Hearing: 21.04.2026Pronounced: 28.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 2655/PUN/2025 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Mahesh Kumar Nagarajan Vs. DCIT, Panvel Circle Plot No. 13, Sai Krupa, Road 3rd Floor, Aayakar No. 10, New Panvel, Dist Bhavan, Plot No. Raigad 410206. 2/2A, Sector 17, PAN: AADPN8382K Khanda Colony, New Panvel 410206. Appellant Respondent

: Assessee by Shri Ajinkya M Vaishampayan : Revenue by Shri Manoj Thripathi, Addl. CIT (Through Virtual) : Date of hearing 21.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 28.04.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM:

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee directed against the order Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 11.03.2025 pertain to A.Y 2016-17 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 29.11.2018.

2.

Registry has informed that the present appeal is delayed by 184 days. Application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit is placed on record. Main reason for delay is that the employee looking after the taxation work left the job during the Covid-19 period

ITA No.2655/PUN/2025 Mahesh Kumar Nagarajan

and thereafter the assessee came to know about the passing of the impugned order only after the change of new employee and receiving the show cause notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.10.2025.

3.

Even though ld. DR strongly objected the condonation application filed by the assessee, we however notice that the delay is not intentional and assessee has not gained from the said delay and therefore taking a justice oriented approach and placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisiiton, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. Reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), hereby condone the delay of 184 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.

4.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee challenging the alleged additions submitted that the assessee could not make proper compliance before ld. CIT(A) resulting into passing of the ex-parte order and therefore prayed for affording one more opportunity to go before ld. CIT(A).

5.

On the other hand, ld. DR fairly did not oppose the request made by the assessee.

6.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that the

ITA No.2655/PUN/2025 Mahesh Kumar Nagarajan

assessee is an individual and income of Rs. 68,35,770/- declared in e-return for A.Y 2016-17 filed on 27.02.2018. In the assessment proceedings carried after validly issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act for the limited scrutiny through CASS, ld. AO was not satisfied with the submissions made by the assessee to explain the source of cash deposit of Rs. 21,82,846/-. Ld. AO rejected the claim of loss of depreciation of Rs. 7,80,899/-, business loss of Rs. 8,25,511/-, set off of interest on housing loan at Rs. 2,00,000/- and set off of loss under head income from other sources at Rs. 4,633/- and also did not allow the claim of carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 26,00,559/- and accordingly against the returned income of Rs. 68,35,770/-, income assessed at Rs. 1,21,01,480/-.

7.

Against the additions and disallowances by ld. AO assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) but then failed to file any reply or submissions to the notice of hearing fixed on multiple occasions. Ld. CIT(A) thus proceeded ex-parte and confirmed the action of the ld. AO.

8.

Before us, ld. Counsel of the assessee has succeeded in demonstrating the reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from making compliance before Ld. CIT(A) and that the assessee has all relevant details in support of the grounds of appeal so as to demonstrate that impugned additions are uncalled for. We therefore in the larger interest of

ITA No.2655/PUN/2025 Mahesh Kumar Nagarajan justice and being fair to both the sides restore all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that the ld. CIT(A) shall afford proper opportunity to the assessee. Further, we direct the assessee to remain cooperative in furnishing the details called for by the ld. CIT(A). Finding of ld. CIT(A) is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

9.

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

Order pronounced on this 28th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; िदनांक / Dated :28 April, 2026. KRK, Sr. PS

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 →