YASHANJALI GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT GHOSPURI,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 1581/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 October 2026AY 2013-146 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal before it, noting that the Ld. DR had no specific objections. Regarding the primary issue, the Tribunal, respectfully following the observations and ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy and Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji & others, held that a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented approach should be adopted when considering applications for condonation of delay. The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), and no benefit was derived by causing the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the disputed issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. The assessee was to be provided with one more opportunity of hearing to substantiate its case with evidence. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Yashanjali Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC Delhi. The appeal was filed with a delay of 30 days before the ITAT, which was condoned. The core dispute originated from an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2013-14. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 1,34,50,700/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, as the assessee had not filed a return of income and failed to provide substantiation despite notices. The assessee's subsequent appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in-limine due to a delay of 1020 days, which the CIT(A) found was not sufficiently explained.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 1020 days in filing the appeal before it, thereby dismissing the appeal in-limine, turning on the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and principles of natural justice. Assessee's Arguments: - The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, specifically the death of the tax counsel, and was not deliberate or wanton. - The assessee had filed an affidavit explaining the sufficient cause for the delay and had a good case on merits, praying for an opportunity to substantiate its case. - The CIT(A) failed to consider the facts and valid reasons mentioned in the Form No. 35 and the condonation application. Revenue's Arguments: - The Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A), implying that the delay was not sufficiently explained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 250,Section 69A,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Hearing: 30.09.2026Pronounced: 05.10.2026

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

- The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC Delhi passed u/sec 147 r.w.s. 144 and u/sec 250 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal and sustaining the addition of cash deposits u/sec69A of the Act made by the Assessing Officer.

2.

At the time of hearing,the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 30 days in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble

ITA.No. 1581/PUN/2026 Yashanjali Gramin Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit Tribunal and the delay

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 →