JYOTI SHAMKANT KOTKAR,PUNE, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA vs. ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, DGIT (INVESTIGATION)

First we take up IT(SS)A No.32/PUN/2026 as the lead case. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income u/s 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2020-21 on 15.02.2021 declaring total loss of Rs.33,97,225/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 03.02.2021 in the

The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 192 days. The Ld. CIT(A) in absence of sufficient cause for delay in filing of the appeal and relying on various decisions dismissed the appeal. While doing so, he observed that the reasons provided by the assessee for the said delay in Form 35 appears to be very general in nature and the assessee did not submit any reply in response to the notice issued on 07.01.2026 wherein he was required to further substantiate the reasons for condonation of delay.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs.11,77,490/- made by the Ld. AO u/s 69A of ITA, 1961, by treating the agricultural income declared by the appellant as unexplained money. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in not condoning the delay of 192 days in filling the appeal and dismissing the appeal without admitting it for adjudication on merits, without properly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and without considering that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate, thereby denying the Appellant an effective opportunity of being heard and violating the principles of natural justice. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the cash deposit of Rs.8,00,000/- forming part of the alleged unexplained amount, stood duly explained with reference to the seized documents and represented unaccounted cash receipts of the Nandan Group entities which had already been offered to tax during the course of search proceedings, and therefore the addition sustained u/s 69A of the ITA, 1961 is unjustified and liable to be deleted. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on farts in not granting the benefit of telescoping of the income already disclosed by the Nandan Group entities, despite the fact that the impugned cash deposit was out of such disclosed receipts, thereby wrongly sustaining the addition made u/s 69A of the ITA, 1961. 5. The appellant craves leave to add / modify / amend /delete all / any of the grounds of appeal.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, in the bunch of cases for the same search action u/s 132 of the Act, to which the assessee Smt.Jyoti Shamkant Kotkar is also one of searched party [IT(SS)A No.27 to 31/PUN/2026 & 1618 & 1619/PUN/2026, order dated 24.07.2026] has restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the issue on merit. The Ld. AR then reiterating the same reasons that were stated in the above bunch of

The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that inspite of the opportunity granted by the Ld. CIT(A) to substantiate the reasons for the delay, the assessee has not explained any reasonable cause for such delay in filing of the appeal. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in dismissing the appeal on account of delay.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 192 days. The assessee had stated the reasons for the delay in Form 35 which is reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) in para 2.1 of his order. According to him, the reasons given by the assessee were not sufficient, therefore, he gave one more opportunity to the assessee vide notice dated 07.01.2026 to further substantiate the reasons for delay but the assessee failed to respond. He,

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 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: “14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.”

We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26310-26311/2024 order dated

In the light of the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited (supra) and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Pune Tribunal (supra), we deem it proper, in the interest of justice, to set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter back to his file 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 unless required for the sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) 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 facts of the present case and grounds raised in IT(SS)A No.33/PUN/2026 are identical in the appeal in IT(SS)A No.32/PUN/2026. By our above decision in IT(SS)A No.32/PUN/2026, we have restored the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the issue on merit. Following similar reasonings, we restore the

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