MANISHA VILAS PATIL,ISLAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 SANGLI, SANGLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3235/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 April 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) after being satisfied with the 'reasonable cause' presented by the assessee. The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed due to significant delays in filing. The assessee claimed the delay was due to reasonable cause and sought an opportunity to present their case on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was caused by a reasonable cause and whether the matter should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271(1)(b),Section 250

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 Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl, DR (Through virtual)
Hearing: 23.04.2026Pronounced: 27.04.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeals at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2015-16 are directed against the separate orders evenly dated 09.10.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the separate orders passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. From records, we observe that ld.CIT(A) dismissed the three appeals being Assessment Year : 2015-16 Manisha Vilas Patil,

barred by limitation as the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 252 days, 120 days and 120 days respectively. Assessee has demonstrated before ld.CIT(A) that delay has arisen due to ‘reasonable cause’ and through Grounds of appeal requested for granting one more opportunity to go before ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of the issues on merit. On the other hand, Ld.DR supported the impugned order.

3.

We have heard ld. DR and perused the record placed before us. Appeal preferred by assessee before Ld.CIT(A) against the quantum addition and penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(b) of the Act were delayed by of 252 days, 120 days and 120 days respectively. Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay. On going through the submissions filed by the assessee before us as well as ld.CIT(A) explaining the reasons for delay, we are satisfied that the ‘reasonable cause prevented the assessee from filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) within the statutory time limit. Further, also observing that the delay is not intentional and assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal with a delay, we 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 in filing of the appeals before Ld.CIT(A) referred supra.

4.

So far as merits of the case are concerned, we find that ld.CIT(A) has not decided the issues raised in the instant appeal on merits, therefore in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, we deem it proper to restore the issues on merits back to the file ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. In Assessment Year : 2015-16 Manisha Vilas Patil,

view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the issue, the issues raised in the instant appeal are being remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A). Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and consider the documents/evidences to be filed by the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is directed to update email and contact details 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. Finding of the Ld.CIT(A) is set aside and Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA Nos. 3233 to 3235/PUN/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 27th day of April, 2026. (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ंक / Dated : 27th April, 2026. Ashwini/Satish

Satish Kumar Madishetty Assessment Year : 2015-16 Manisha Vilas Patil,

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 →