DIGAMBAR GANPATRAO JADHAV,SANGLI vs. ITO WAD 3 SANGLI, SANGLI

ITA 1647/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 September 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 60 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause for the assessee's inability to respond to notices from the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) due to his critical medical condition, lumbar spondylosis, as supported by his affidavit and medical certificate. The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was incapacitated and unaware of the proceedings. Consequently, the order of the Learned CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Learned CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The Learned CIT(A) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing and to consider all necessary details to be filed by the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mr. Digambar Ganpatrao Jadhav, is appealing an order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2013-14. This order, dated 12.11.2025, was passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and stemmed from an assessment order dated 28.03.2022, passed under Sections 147 read with 144B of the Act. The assessment order made an addition of Rs. 35,26,769/-. The assessee faced a delay of 60 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The assessee claimed to have been suffering from lumbar spondylosis from August 2025, rendering him bed-ridden and incapacitated, which prevented him from responding to notices from the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). He became aware of the ex-parte decision only in February 2026 upon receiving a notice of tax arrears.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2013-14, as contemplated under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that he was suffering from severe medical conditions, specifically lumbar spondylosis from August 2025, which made him bed-ridden and unable to attend to any correspondence or legal obligations. He was unaware of the proceedings before the CIT(A) and the subsequent appeal deadline. He relied on his affidavit and medical certificate to demonstrate that the delay was due to circumstances beyond his control and that substantial justice should prevail over procedural technicalities. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Learned CIT(A), implying that the assessee had failed to provide necessary explanations and submissions before the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri M S Khire, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sanjiv Kumar Verma, JCIT

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2013-14 on 12.11.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 28.03.2022. 2. There was a delay of 60 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. We have perused the affidavit and convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay. Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. No assessee is going to gain by filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, dela

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 →