PRAMODKUMAR KESHARCHAND BOTHARA,SHIRUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 10/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 October 2025AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of a 124-day delay without condoning it. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay, citing a medical emergency in the family. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay and that the assessee would not gain by consciously delaying the appeal. Therefore, the ITAT directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay of 124 days and decide the appeal on its merits. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de novo adjudication, with the direction that the CIT(A) should provide an opportunity to the assessee to present all necessary documents. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pramodkumar Kesharchand, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune Bench against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2017-18. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal against an assessment order passed under section 153C read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The dismissal by the CIT(A) was solely on the ground of a 124-day delay in filing the appeal. The assessee contended that the delay was due to a medical emergency in his family, as his wife was ill from October 2021.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and fact by dismissing the appeal due to a 124-day delay without condoning it, despite the assessee's submission of a medical emergency as the cause for delay, thereby violating the principle of substantial justice over procedural delay, as per Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in law and fact by upholding the addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- as unexplained investment under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE, based on uncorroborated third-party statements and unreliable seized documents, without proper inquiry. Assessee's Contentions: - The addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 is incorrect as no cash was paid. - A consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years under Section 153C is invalid; a separate note is required for each year. - The addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE is based solely on uncorroborated third-party statements and unreliable seized documents (loose papers, Excel sheet) without proper inquiry. - The assessment order was passed mechanically without adherence to necessary procedures, including approval under Section 153D. Revenue's Contentions: - Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153C,Section 144,Section 250,Section 69,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 153D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE

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

For Appellant: Shri Paras Munot
For Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar – Addl.CIT(DR)
Hearing: 14/10/2025Pronounced: 31/10/2025

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[ld.CIT(A)], Pune-12 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2017-18, dated 28.01.2025 emanating from Assessment Order u/s.153C r.w.s 144 of the I.T.Act, dated 30.12.2021. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and in fact in making addition and Ld. CIT(A) also erred in law and in fact in making addition of Rs.60,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act without taking into consideration the fact that appellant has not paid any cash on money amount as unexplained investment.

2.

The Ld. AO erred in law and in facts by recording a consolidated satisfaction note for different Assessment Years in the impugned proceedings, whereas a separate satisfaction note is required to be recorded under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act for each Assessment Year. This failure to comply with the legal requirement vitiates the entire assessment proceedings.

3.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO and also Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in upholding the addition of Rs.60,00,000/-under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE, solely based on uncorroborated third-party statements. The appellant prays that the said arbitrary addition of Rs.60,00,000/-may please be deleted. The appellant submits that reliance on unverified third-party records, without proper scrutiny, makes the assessment order unsustainable in law.

4.

The Ld. AO erred in law and in facts by passing order based on approval u/s 153D mechanically on the same date, without adherence to the necessary procedures. This method of approval disregards the procedural requirements set forth by the relevant authorities or regulations and undermines the transparency and fairness of the approval process. The failure to follow due process, including the lack of individual scrutiny, leads to the bypassing of required steps, which can result in improper or erroneous decisions, ultimately affecting the fairness of the outcomes.

5.

The Ld. AO and also CIT(A) has erred in law and in fact by relying on 2 unreliable seized documents, including loose papers and an Excel sheet without a further enquiry falling which the addition made in the hands of the assessee fails and, is not justified. The papers contain errors such as incorrect names, missing dates, and manipulations, and lack signatures to authenticate transactions. The Excel sheet, seized from Mr. Pravin Gawali's residence, shows arithmetical inconsistencies and has no correlation with the loose papers from Mr. Umakant Kuwar's residence, rendering them inadmissible as evidence. Furthermore, post-search enquiry statements cannot be considered as corroborative evidence.

6.

The Appellant craves leaves to add or amend any ground of appeal.”

Findings & Analysis :

2.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[ld.CIT(A)] dismissed the appeal of the Assessee filed against assessment order u/s.153C r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.12.2021 for A.Y.2017-18 only on the ground of Delay of 124 days.

3.

Admittedly, there was a delay of 124 days in filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A).Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal. During the appellate proceedings before the ld.CIT(A), Assessee has filed an Affidavit stating that due to Medical Emergency in his family, Assessee could not file appeal in time. Assessee had explained in the Affidavit that his wife was ill from October 2021, hence, there was a delay in filing appeal.

4.

In this case, we are of the opinion that since there was a medical emergency in the family of the Assessee, there was sufficient and reasonable cause for delay. Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. Assessee is not going to gain by consciously delaying the appeal. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we direct ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay of 124 days and decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the order of ld.CIT(A) is set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity to the assessee. Assessee shall file all the necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31 October, 2025. VINAY BHAMORE Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददिधंक / Dated : 31 Oct, 2025/ SGR आदेशकीप्रनिनलनपअग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपऩलधर्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

The CIT(A), concerned.

4.

The Pr. CIT, concerned. नवभधगऩयप्रनिनिनर्, आयकर अपऩलऩय अनर्करण, “बऩ” बेंच, पपणे / DR,

5.

ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गधर्ाफ़धइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशधिपसधर / BY ORDER, //// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपऩलऩय अनर्करण, पपणे/ITAT, Pune.

5

More judgments on Section 153C

All 9,619 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →