AJAY SOPANRAO URKUDE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 5(3) , NAGPUR

ITA 682/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur15 October 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 100 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided reasons for the delay, including a medical emergency involving a close relative, which were found to be in the nature of a reasonable cause. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors and Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits and had summarily dismissed it by not condoning the delay, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A). All issues raised before the Tribunal were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to remain vigilant. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ajay Sopanrao Urkude, is an individual who filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21 on January 10, 2021, declaring an income of Rs. 4,77,500/-. Based on information from a search and seizure action on M/s. City Corporation Ltd. and its related entities, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee failed to comply properly, leading to additions totaling Rs. 28,39,954/-, and the income was assessed at Rs. 33,17,460/-. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) but the appeal was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 100 days, without condoning the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has the power to condone the delay of 100 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the reasons provided by the assessee? 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating on the merits of the case? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued for condonation of the delay before the CIT(A) by referring to an affidavit and medical treatment documents of a relative who underwent coronary angiography. The assessee also relied on judicial precedents where similar delays were condoned. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) should have considered the merits of the case despite the delay. Revenue's contentions: The Learned Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal due to the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69,Section 132,Section 148,Section 250,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE SMC BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Anil Varma, CA
Hearing: 13/10/2026Pronounced: 15/10/2026

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”) dated 30.04.2026 passed u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order dated 20.11.2024 passed u/sec. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21. 2. Grievance of the assessee is against the addition for long term capital gain at Rs.2,16,554/- and the addition for unexplained investment u/sec. 69 of the Act at Rs. 26,23,400/-.

3.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before me. I observe that assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 on 10.01.2021 declaring income at Rs. 4,77,500/-. Based on the 2 information

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 →