NIRANJAN BHIMRAO FARFAD,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

ITA 635/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur14 October 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay of 333 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned. The primary reason for the delay was the assessee's critical cardiac condition, diagnosed as complete heart blockage, necessitating hospitalization. The Tribunal found this to be a reasonable cause, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Since the CIT(A) had not dealt with the issues on merits, the Tribunal restored all the issues raised in the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was also cautioned to remain vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Niranjan Bhimrao Farfad, is an individual. The Revenue is the Income Tax Department. The assessment year in question is 2020-21. The appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 04.03.2026, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This order arose from an assessment order dated 20.02.2025, passed under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Act. The assessee's grievance pertains to an addition of Rs. 36,63,768/- for undisclosed interest income allegedly received from Punjab National Bank. Re-assessment proceedings were initiated based on information regarding this income. The assessee did not respond to the Assessing Officer (AO), leading to a best judgment assessment and the addition. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was delayed by 333 days and was dismissed in limine without considering the merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 333 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, turning on the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under the Income Tax Act. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was primarily due to a critical cardiac condition, specifically complete heart blockage, requiring hospitalization from 26.02.2024, which prevented the assessee from attending to appellate proceedings. The assessee requested one more opportunity to present their case. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue supported the order of the CIT(A), implying that the delay was not sufficiently justified or that the CIT(A)'s dismissal was correct. 2. Whether the issues raised in the appeal should be adjudicated on merits by the CIT(A), given that the appeal was dismissed in limine due to delay. Assessee's Contention: The assessee sought an opportunity to argue the merits of the case before the CIT(A). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue supported the CIT(A)'s order, which did not deal with the merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148,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 Abhay Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Shiv Shankar Yadav, Sr.DR
Hearing: 12/10/2026Pronounced: 14/10/2026

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”) dated 04.03.2026 passed u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order dated 20.02.2025 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 undisclosed interest income at Rs.36,63,768/- allegedly received from Punjab National Bank.

3.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before me. I find that assessee is an individual and based on the information about income received by the assessee at Rs.36,63,768/-, re-assessmen

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 →