ABP REALTORS PVT. LTD,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 879/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 September 20267 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeals as unadmitted and time-barred. The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed appeals against the Section 154 orders, and these appeals were filed within the statutory time limit. The Ld. CIT(A)'s finding that the appeal was delayed by 11 years was factually incorrect as it was based on the date of the original Section 200A intimation rather than the date of the Section 154 order against which the appeal was filed. The Tribunal emphasized that an order under Section 154 is an independent order, and the assessee has a right to file an appeal against it. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the assessee's appeals and decide the issues on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it was not commenting on the merits of the case and allowed the appeals for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, ABP Realtors Pvt. Ltd., filed five appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, against the orders of the National Faceless Appellate Authority (NFAC), Delhi. These appeals pertained to Assessment Years (AYs) 2012-13, 2014-15, and 2015-16. The core issue was the non-admission of appeals filed by the assessee before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld. CIT(A)] against orders passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Section 200A. The Ld. CIT(A) had treated these appeals as time-barred, citing an inordinate delay of over eleven years, and consequently dismissed them without adjudicating on merits. The assessee contended that the appeals were filed within the statutory time limit against the Section 154 orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeals filed by the assessee against the orders passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Section 200A, were maintainable and within the prescribed time limit, as per Section 249(2) of the Act? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the appeals filed against the Section 154 orders were within the statutory thirty-day period prescribed under Section 249(2). It was contended that the Ld. CIT(A) erroneously calculated the delay by referring to the original Section 200A intimations instead of the Section 154 orders, which were independent. The assessee relied on the decision in Ms. Shantilal v. ITO [2026] 186 taxmann.com 1037 (Chennai Trib.) for the proposition that appeals against CPC-TDS rectification orders are maintainable even if the original intimations were not appealed. The assessee also argued that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to provide an effective opportunity to address the objection to admission. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 154,Section 200A,Section 246A,Section 249,Section 234E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Mr. Piyush Bafna
For Respondent: Shri Abhay Sadashiv Nannaware

PER BENCH : These five appeals are 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. 2012-13, 2014-15 and 2015-16. 2. Since issue involved is same, for the sake of convenience these five appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

Submission of Ld. AR :

3.

The Ld. AR filed written submission. The same is reproduced here as under :

“1. Issue and relief sought. The appellant seeks setting aside of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, dated 20.12.2025 and restoration for adjudication on merits after a

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 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →