MANOHAR RAMCHAND JHAMTANI,PUNE vs. THE ITO 8(3), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 347/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 April 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause. The Tribunal restored the quantum and penalty appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 197-day delay. The assessee claimed the delay was due to medical reasons and requested a fresh adjudication on merits. The ITAT considered the medical issues as a reasonable cause for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable due to reasonable cause, and if so, whether the appeals should be restored for adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 271(1)(c),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 Nikhil Pathak &, Ms. Arrchena Shetty
For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT-DR
Hearing: 23.04.2026Pronounced: 27.04.2026

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.347 & 348/PUN/2026 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Manohar Ramchand Jhamtani, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sr.No.111/2, Neelkant Niwas, Ward 8(3), Pune Nr.Suykhwani City, Gurunanak Nagar, Pimpri, Pune - 411 017 PAN : AAYPJ2707M Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak & Ms. Arrchena Shetty Revenue by : Shri Amit Bobde, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 23.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 27.04.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BOARD, 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 19.12.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’)

2 ITA No.347 & 348/PUN/2026 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Manohar Ramchand Jhamatani,

arising out of the Assessment Order dated 28.02.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act and penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and dated 01.07.2024.

2.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) dismissed the quantum appeal being barred by limitation as the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 197 days. Assessee has demonstrated that the same has arisen due to ‘reasonable cause’ and only requested for granting one more opportunity to go before ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of the issues on merit. Prayer also made to remit the penalty appeal to Ld.CIT(A) being consequential. On the other hand, the Ld.DR objected to the request made by ld. Counsel for the assessee.

3.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Quantum appeal preferred before Ld.CIT(A) is delayed by 197 days. Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay. On going through the submissions and affidavit filed by the assessee before us as well as ld.CIT(A) explaining the reasons for delay, we are satisfied that the medical problems faced by the assessee. There was delay in

3 ITA No.347 & 348/PUN/2026 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Manohar Ramchand Jhamatani,

filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A). Considering the ‘reasonable cause preventing the assessee from filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) within the statutory time limit and 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).

4.

So far as merits of the case are concerned, we find that assesse failed to get proper opportunity to plead before the ld. CIT(A), therefore considering the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and in the larger interest of justice we deem it proper to restore the issues on merits back to the file ld. CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. In 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). Since Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in leviable on the quantum additions, therefore issues raised in penalty appeals in ITA 347/PUN/ 2026 are also restored to the file of

4 ITA No.347 & 348/PUN/2026 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Manohar Ramchand Jhamatani,

ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication . 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. Impugned findings of the Ld.CIT(A) are set aside and Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA Nos. 347-348/PUN/2026 are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 27th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ंक / Dated : 27th April, 2026. Ashwini Satish Kumar Madishetty Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.04.27 17:54:40 +05'30'

5 ITA No.347 & 348/PUN/2026 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Manohar Ramchand Jhamatani, 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,

// True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →