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

First we take up IT(SS)A No.27/PUN/2026 in the case of Shamkant Keshar Kotkar as the lead case. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income u/s 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2019-20 on 31.10.2019 declaring total income of Rs.60,72,260/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted on 03.02.2021 in the Gandan group of cases. During the said search action the residence of the assessee and Smt. Jyoti Shamkant Kotkar situated at Flat No.1, Lane No.13, Nandadeep Apartment, Near Prabhat Police Station, Prabhat Road, Pune and also the office premises at 406- 407, Amar Business Park, Baner, Pune was searched. Accordingly, notice u/s

The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay of 191 days. The Ld. CIT(A) in absence of sufficient cause for filing of the appeal with delay and relying on various decisions dismissed the appeal. While doing so, he noted that the assessee did not submit any reply in response to the notice issued on 07.01.2026 wherein he was required to 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 made by the Ld. AO in disallowing long-term capital loss of Rs.3,48,76,620/- claimed by appellant relating to sale of flat in scheme called as "Nandan Festiva", without considering the actual cost of Improvement incurred by Appellant, amounting to Rs.3,20,30,000/- 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 191 days in filing the appeal and dismissing the appeal without admitting it for adjudication on merits,

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessee has almost become bankrupt during the said period and due to financial problems and demand from creditors he was completely disturbed for which he could not follow up for filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was not deliberate but purely unintentional and there was no ulterior motive behind the non-adherence to the

The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He submitted that there was negligence on the part of the assessee in filing of the appeal with delay of 191 days and 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, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. 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 191 days. The assessee has also filed elaborate submissions explaining the reasons for such delay which have been reproduced by the Ld. CIT(A) at pages 2 to 4 of his order. According to him, the reasons given by the assessee are not sufficient and therefore he dismissed the appeal as un- admitted by not condoning such delay in filing of the appeal. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that due to acute financial problems and constant pressure from the creditors the assessee was completely disturbed for which the time period for filing of the appeal was glossed over and there occurred a delay of 191 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

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 31.01.2025 has held that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal.

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 and in the

So far as the remaining appeals are concerned, a perusal of the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) show that he has dismissed all these appeals as unadmitted due to day in filing of the same, the details of which are as under: Sr. No. IT(SS)A No./ ITA No. A.Y. Delay 1 28/PUN/2026 2020-21 192 days 2 29/PUN/2026 2021-22 192 days 3 30/PUN/2026 2020-21 192 days 4 31/PUN/2026 2021-22 192 days 5 1618/PUN/2026 2013-14 286 days 6 1619/PUN/2026 2013-14 286 days

After hearing both the sides, we find the grounds raised in the above appeals are identical to the grounds raised in IT(SS)A No.27/PUN/2026. In all these appeals the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals by not admitting the same on account of delay. We have already decided the issue and restored the same to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the issue on merit. Following similar reasongins, we restore all these appeals to the file of the

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.