SHALIGRAM DILIP WADILE,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

ITA 2813/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 October 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Madhuri Goud vs. 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 the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was supported by sufficient cause. It opined that the CIT(A) should have adopted a pragmatic approach and condoned the delay. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the disputed issues back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee is to be provided with one more opportunity of hearing to substantiate the case with evidence, subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority within one month. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in submitting information for early disposal. The grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shaligram Dilip Wadile, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi. The assessment year in question is 2018-19. The ITAT is considering the assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the assessee's appeal due to a delay of 136 days in filing. The Assessing Officer (AO) had made additions of Rs. 70,00,000/- for unexplained time deposits and Rs. 3,91,192/- for interest income, totaling Rs. 73,91,192/-, under Section 147 read with Sections 144, 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after the assessee failed to respond to notices issued under Sections 148 and 142(1). The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal in limine for not explaining the delay sufficiently.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 136 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is to be condoned, considering the explanation provided by the assessee? (Question of fact and law, turning on the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as applied to Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The delay was not intentional or wanton but due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The assessee has a strong case on merits and sought an opportunity to present evidence. The CIT(A) failed to consider the valid reasons for the delay. Revenue's Contention: The Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A), implying that the delay was not sufficiently explained and the dismissal was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 69,Section 5

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

Hearing: 05.10.2026Pronounced: 06.10.2026

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

- The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi passed u/sec 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.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 additions made by the Assessing Officer.

2.

At the time of hearing, Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal and the delay was not intentional and filed an affidavit of the assessee for condonation of delay. On consideration of the facts and information mentioned in the application, there is a ITA.No. 2813/PUN/2026 Shal

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 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →