RANJANA BHARAT GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), PUNE

There is a delay of 74 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal in the case of Bharati Maruti Gaikwad for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. It has been explained that the assessee is a farmer and had sold agricultural land and has never filed his return of income. He was solely dependent on his tax consultant and the e-mail of his son was given in the appeal memo. Since his son has changed his mobile and has lost access to his email, therefore, he could not follow the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC for which the delay occurred in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal.

After considering the contents of the condonation application filed along with the affidavit and after hearing the Ld. DR, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the respective assessees, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal by 144 days in the case of Bharat Maruti Gaikwad and 138 days in the case of Ranjana Bharat Gaikwad and thereby dismissing the appeals filed by both the assessees.

First we take up ITA No.107/PUN/2026 in the case of Bharat Maruti Gaikwad as the lead case. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an

Since there was delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC by 144 days, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset drew the attention of the Bench to para 3 of the appeal order wherein the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has reproduced the reason for condonation of delay which reads as under: “(i) Appeal File Late due to assessee received hard copy on 27th Aug 2023 by post assessee is illiterate agricultural person not knowing any provision of income tax act.”

Relying on various decisions the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should not have dismissed the appeal on account of delay and should have decided the appeal on merit by condoning the delay since the land in question is an agricultural land and the assessee is not liable to any tax. He accordingly submitted that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the issue on merit.

The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited

We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

We find recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under:

In the light of the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited (supra) and considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the issue on merit and as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make her submissions, if any, on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

After hearing both the sides, we find the grounds raised by the assessee are similar to the grounds raised in ITA No.107/PUN/2026. We have already decided the issue and restored the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to decide the issue afresh after condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. Following similar reasonings, we restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with similar directions.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.