PRATIK DEEPAK AGARWAL,LONAVLA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 9(3), AKURDI, PUNE

ITA 2227/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 September 2026AY 2025-20263 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the assessee should be allowed. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed the return on 14.09.2025, which was prior to the due date of 16.09.2025. Furthermore, the delay in e-verification was condoned by the ld. PCIT under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, considering the short period of delay and satisfaction of conditions in CBDT Circular No.11/2024. The Tribunal reasoned that belated e-verification is a procedural lapse and should not defeat substantive justice. The Tribunal also noted that the date of uploading the return, as available in the acknowledgement, should be considered the date of filing. Therefore, the assessee's claim for carry forward of loss of Rs.31,77,117/- was allowed. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pratik Deepak Agarwal, filed an appeal against an order of the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Coimbatore, which upheld an intimation passed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question is 2025-26. The dispute concerns the disallowance of the carry forward of a loss amounting to Rs.31,77,117/- due to delay in furnishing the Income Tax Return. The assessee filed the return on 14.09.2025 and e-verified it on 25.10.2025. The due date for filing the return was 16.09.2025. The CPC denied the carry forward of loss. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was unsuccessful, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in e-verification of the Income Tax Return, filed before the due date, warrants disallowance of the claim for carry forward of loss? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contentions: - The assessee argued that the return was uploaded on 14.09.2025, which is prior to the due date of 16.09.2025. The delay was only in e-verification, which is a procedural lapse. - The assessee relied on an order dated 08.09.2026 issued by the ld. PCIT, Pune-3, under Section 119(2)(b) of the Act, which condoned the delay in e-filing and observed that the conditions in CBDT Circular No.11/2024 dated 01.10.2014 were satisfied. - The assessee contended that belated e-verification should not defeat substantive justice. Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). - However, the ld. DR fairly accepted that the delay in filing the e-return had been condoned by the ld. PCIT, considering the CBDT circular and Section 119(2)(b) of the Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 119(2)(b),Section 139

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC BENCH”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Kulakarni, Adv
For Respondent: Dr. Amit Munde
Hearing: 25.08.2026Pronounced: 29.09.2026

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2025-26 is directed against the order dated 23.03.2026 of Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Coimbatore emanating out of Intimation dated 22.01.2026 passed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

The only issue for my consideration is disallowance of carry forward of the loss at Rs.31,77,117/- for delay in furnishing the Income Tax Return.

3.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before me. I observe that the assessee is an individual and furnished the Income Tax Return on 14.09.2025 but e-verified on 25.10.2025. Since the due date of filing of the return of the assessee is 16.09.2025 CPC denied the claim

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 119(2)(b)

All 980 judgments and leading authorities on Section 119(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →