DATTATRAYA PRAKASH WANKAR ,SOLAPUR vs. ITO WD-2(3), SOLAPUR

ITA 2210/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 October 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dattatraya Prakash Wankar, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune, challenging an order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. This order stemmed from an assessment order dated 06.02.2025, passed under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year in question is 2020-21. The appeal before the ITAT was filed 04 days beyond the prescribed limitation period, which the Tribunal condoned. The core of the dispute involves an addition of Rs.11,19,417/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) by disallowing a deduction claimed under section 57 of the Act. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 81 days in filing, without adjudication on merits.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 04 days in filing the appeal before it, finding reasonable cause for the same. Regarding the appeal before the CIT(A), the Tribunal noted that the assessee contended the appeal was filed within 30 days of receiving the order and that the delay was due to the tax consultant. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the case. Considering the overall facts and circumstances and settled judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) deserved to be condoned. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the merits, the Tribunal restored the issues raised in the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and comply with hearing notices. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide the merits of the addition of Rs.11,19,417/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 04 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, Pune, warrants condonation in light of the reasons provided by the assessee? (Question of fact) 2. Whether the delay of 81 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) ought to have been condoned, thereby allowing the appeal to be decided on merits? (Question of fact and law) 3. Whether the addition of Rs.11,19,417/- made by the Assessing Officer by disallowing the deduction under section 57 of the Act is justified? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The assessee contended that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to being improperly advised by the tax consultant and late communication regarding the assessment order. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the merits of the case. The assessee also argued that the delay of 04 days before the ITAT was due to reasonable cause. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue before the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 57,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Shingte
For Respondent: Dr. Amit Munde
Hearing: 25.08.2026Pronounced: 05.10.2026

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21 is directed against the order dated 24.02.2026 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi emanating out of Assessment order dated 06.02.2025 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation by 04 days. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated the reasons giving rise to the said delay and considering the ‘reasonable cause’ the delay of 04 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal is condoned.

3.

Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee revolves around the addition of Rs.11,19,417/- made b

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 57

All 1,211 judgments and leading authorities on Section 57 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →