LINA PRAVIN GAIKWAD,BARSHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3) , SOLAPUR

ITA 1169/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 September 2026AY 2021-224 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the delay of 192 days in filing the appeal, relying 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, finding that reasonable cause prevented the assessee from filing within the stipulated time and that the delay was not intentional. Regarding the appeal itself, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided partial details to the Assessing Officer but failed to appear before the CIT(A), leading to a dismissal in limine without adjudication on merits. Considering the prayer of the assessee's counsel and in the larger interest of justice, the ITAT decided to give the assessee one more opportunity. Consequently, without dwelling on the merits, the Tribunal remitted all issues raised in the appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The assessee was directed to ensure correct contact details are on record, track proceedings via ITBA Portal, file all relevant documents, and refrain from seeking adjournments without reasonable cause. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Lina Pravin Gaikwad, engaged in the business of a General Merchant, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune Bench for Assessment Year 2021-22. The appeal was filed with a delay of 192 days. The assessee's original assessment order, passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Assessing Officer, included disallowances of purchases, hamali/loading/unloading and freight expenses, and a disallowance under section 80C, resulting in an assessed income of Rs.4,22,72,175/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-prosecution. The ITAT was considering the condonation of delay and the merits of the case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 192 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee (spinal cord ailment and adenomyosis surgery of the authorized representative and assessee respectively)? (Question of fact) 2. Whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A) on merits, given that the previous appeal was dismissed in limine due to non-prosecution? Assessee's arguments: The assessee's counsel argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to the medical conditions of the authorized representative and the assessee herself, preventing proper representation. They prayed for an opportunity to substantiate the case before the CIT(A). Revenue's arguments: The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the CIT(A). No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue regarding the merits of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 80C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval, CA
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar
Hearing: 31.08.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2021-22 is directed against the order dated 24.06.2025 framed by ld.NFAC, Delhi which is arising out of Assessment Order dated 27.12.2022 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 192 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay. On due consideration of the said reasons, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filin

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 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →