GUNGUN CHANDA,KHARGHAR vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE,

ITA 1329/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 September 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), 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. The Tribunal found that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, and the assessee had demonstrated a 'reasonable cause' for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits, and in the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) dated 16.01.2026 and remitted all issues raised in the appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to update their correct email and postal addresses on record and at the ITBA portal, be vigilant in tracking proceedings, file all relevant documents promptly, and refrain from seeking adjournments without reasonable cause. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Gungun Chanda, is an individual who did not file a return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information that the assessee sold immovable property for Rs. 1.30 crore. Notices under Section 148 and 142(1) were issued, but the assessee did not comply. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1.30 crore as short-term capital gain under Section 144 r.w.s. 144B. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but with a delay of over two years. The CIT(A) rejected the condonation of delay application and did not admit the appeal. The assessee is now before the ITAT challenging the CIT(A)'s order dated 16.01.2026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) can be condoned on the grounds of reasonable cause, as required under the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that they did not receive physical copies of notices or orders, and incorrect email ID on the ITBA portal led to non-receipt of notices from the CIT(A). They only became aware of the proceedings upon receiving a recovery intimation. The assessee claimed a 'reasonable cause' prevented timely filing. They also disputed the sale consideration, stating it was Rs. 65.00 lakh, not Rs. 1.30 crore, and alleged the Assessing Officer made an addition without independent inquiry. The assessee sought one more opportunity before the CIT(A). Revenue's Contentions: The Departmental Representative supported the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 144B

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 Rupesh Gupta, 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. 2013-14 is directed against the order dated 16.01.2026 of ld.NFAC, Delhi which is arising out of Assessment Order dated 28.09.2021 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Brief facts as emanating from the record are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed the return of income for the year under consideration. Based on the information available with the Department that assessee has sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs.1.30

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 →