HARISHCHANDRA MADHUKAR SHINDE,KHARGHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 3/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 July 2026AY 2014-159 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1130 days in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's explanation to be bonafide and genuine, supported by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Others. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits, and the assessee had not received notices due to an incorrect email address. In the larger interest of justice, the Tribunal restored all issues for the impugned assessment years to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC for necessary adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking order. The assessee was directed to update contact details and remain vigilant. The impugned order of the CIT(A)/NFAC was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Harishchandra Madhukar Shinde, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2011-12 and 2013-14 to 2017-18. The appeals were filed with a delay of 1130 days. The assessee contended that the assessment orders were passed on 27.12.2018, and Form No. 35 was filed before the CIT(A) on 25.01.2019. However, the assessee did not receive notices from the CIT(A) as they were sent to an incorrect email address. The ITAT noted the period from March 2020 to March 2022 should not be reckoned for limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessee's appeals before the CIT(A) were dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 1130 days in filing the appeals before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the assessee and the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic circumstances? (Question of law and fact, relying on principles of condonation of delay). Assessee's Contention: The delay is attributable to the incorrect email address used for communication by the CIT(A)/NFAC and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessee claims the initial filing of Form No. 35 was within time. The dismissal by the CIT(A) was ex-parte due to non-receipt of notices, and the assessee seeks an opportunity to present its case on merits. Revenue's Contention: The assessee is recalcitrant in pursuing the case and failed to avail opportunities granted, thus the appeals deserve dismissal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Mehta
For Respondent: Shri Mithun Shete
Hearing: 02.07.2026Pronounced: 02.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / IT(SS)A Nos.01 to 06/PUN/2026 Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 Harishchandra Madhukar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Shinde, Panvel 1401, Mummy Daddy Society, Sector – 20, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai 410 210 Maharashtra PAN : ADXPS1604A Appellant Respondent

Appellant by : Shri Sandeep Mehta (virtual) Respondent by : Shri Mithun Shete, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 02.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 02.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH :

The captioned appeals at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Yrs. 2011-12 and 2013-14 to 2017-18 are directed against the consolidated order of ld.CIT(A)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 27.10.2022 passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of respective Assessment orders passed u/s.144 r.w.s.153A of the Act.

2.

Registry has pointed out that the appeals are barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeals with a delay of 1130 days. Assessee has filed affidavit explaining the reasons for delay and the contents of the affidavit is scanned below :

3.

We have carefully gone through the contents of the affidavit and arguments made by both the parties. We find that Assessment orders u/s.144 r.w.s.155A of the Act for the impugned assessment years case were passed on 27.12.2018 and the assessee claims to have filed Form No.35 before ld.CIT(A) on 25.01.2019 which is within the stipulated time limit. Thereafter, the assessee has not received any of the notices issued by ld.CIT(A) as they were sent on the e-mail id which does not belong to the assessee. Further, the period from March 2020 to March 2022 is admittedly cannot be reckoned for counting the period of limitation in light of judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court on account of covid-19 pandemic outbreak prevailed all over the country and the nation wide lockdowns, movement restrictions and health safety concerns.

4.

In this regard, we take note of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Others, (2013) 12 SCC 649 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court made the following observations:

“21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: 21.1. (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. 21.2. (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. 21.3. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

21.4. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. 21.5. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. 21.6. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. 21.7. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. 21.8. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. 21.9. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. 21.11. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. 21.12. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinised and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. 21.13. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are: 22.1. (a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring the notion that the courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. 22.2. (b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. 22.3. (c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. 22.4. (d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non-serious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters.”

5.

On due consideration of the above observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Affidavit furnished by the assessee explaining the delay before and the facts of the present case, we are convinced that the explanation furnished by the assessee seeking condonation of delay is Bonafide and genuine and thereis nothing to show that assessee has not acted in a diligent manner in presenting the appeals. We therefore condone the delay of 1130 days in filing the appeals before this Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication.

6.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals of the assessee for non- prosecution. There is no adjudication on merits of the case. In this regard, ld. Counsel referring to the affidavit filed by the assessee submitted that all the notices issued by ld.CIT(A)/NFAC were sent on the e-mail id which does not belong to the assessee and therefore the assessee could not make any submissions. Since ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals exparte qua the assessee for non-prosecution and considering the non-receipt of notices by the assessee, ld. Counsel prayed for restoring the issues raised in the impugned assessment years to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and the assessee is now in a position to plead its grounds of appeal with supporting documents to the satisfaction of the authorities.

7.

On the other hand, ld. DR strongly opposed the submissions made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and submitted that assessee is recalcitrant in pursuing his case and could not avail the opportunities granted therefore the appeals filed by the assessee deserves dismissal.

8.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We have perused the orders of ld.CIT(A) for the impugned assessment years under appeal and find that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeals for non-prosecution.

9.

Considering the above facts as demonstrated by the ld. Counsel for the assessee and the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, we in the larger interest justice give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case on merit and therefore without dwelling upon the merits of the case remit back all the issues raised for the impugned assessment years under appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in the set aside proceedings shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is directed to update email and contact detail on the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Impugned order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

10.

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 02nd day of July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 02nd July, 2026. Satish Satish Kumar Madishetty Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.07.02 18:03:21 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “A” बेंच, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

// True Copy // Assistant Registrar, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →