DARSHANA NARSING PAWAR,JALGAON vs. THE ITO WARD 2(1) , JALGAON

ITA 1425/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 September 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that under Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it has the power to admit an appeal filed beyond the limitation period if satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made out a case of 'sufficient cause' for the 407-day delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Consequently, the delay was condoned. The Tribunal noted that the NFAC had not adjudicated the appeal on merits. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal restored the issues raised in the appeal to the file of the NFAC for necessary adjudication, after affording the assessee due opportunity. The assessee was directed to provide updated contact details and remain vigilant regarding adjournments. The impugned order of the NFAC was set aside, and the effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dasharath Narsing Pawar, is an individual who did not file a return of income for Assessment Year 2018-19. Following a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the sale of immovable property worth Rs. 1,08,00,000/-, the assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 52,630/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 47,67,600/- on account of long-term capital gain, assessing the total income at Rs. 48,20,000/-. The assessee appealed to the NFAC, Delhi, but the appeal was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 407 days in filing. The NFAC found the reasons for the delay unsatisfactory and confirmed the AO's assessment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has the power to admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation under Section 253(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if there exists a sufficient cause for the delay? 2. Whether the assessee had a 'reasonable cause' for not filing the appeal before the NFAC within the stipulated time, warranting condonation of the 407-day delay? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that there was a 'reasonable cause' for the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC and prayed for condonation of the delay and restoration of the issues to the NFAC for adjudication. The assessee relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue's Additional CIT raised no objection to the assessee's request for condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 69,Section 250,Section 253(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE

Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak (virtual)
For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale, Addl. CIT
Hearing: 04.08.2026Pronounced: 28.09.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This appeal at the instance of the assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018- 19 is directed against the order dated 30.01.2026 passed by Ld. NFAC, Delhi framed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) which is arising out of Assessment order dated 27.02.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act.

2.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine by not condoning the delay of 407 days in filing of the appeal. There was ‘reasonable cause’ for the assessee for not filing the appeal within the stipulated

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →