RAMTIRATH BAWA,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

ITA 327/NAG/2026Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur16 October 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), 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. This condonation was subject to a cost of Rs. 2,500/- to be deposited by each assessee within 30 days. Regarding the merits, since the impugned demands arose from CPC orders and there was no adjudication by the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the grounds raised on merits to the file of the JAO for de novo adjudication. The JAO was directed to examine the details of income earned from trucks under Section 44AE, for which the assessees would file necessary evidence. The JAO was also instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The appeals concern two assessees, Mohinder Singh and Ramtirath Bawa, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessees are challenging orders passed by the CIT(A) which arose from intimations under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued by the Centralized Processing Center (CPC). The CPC made additions of Rs. 18,74,850/- to Mohinder Singh's income and Rs. 29,43,000/- to Ramtirath Bawa's income. The assessees' appeals to the CIT(A) were dismissed in limine due to delay, and the CIT(A) did not condone this delay. The assessees claim the additions were due to inadvertent mistakes in reporting income from trucks under Section 44AE of the Act, despite owning only three trucks each. They also attempted rectification under Section 154 without success.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the circumstances presented by the assessees. 2. Whether the adjustments made by the CPC, amounting to Rs. 18,74,850/- and Rs. 29,43,000/- respectively, are justified, and if not, whether the matter should be adjudicated de novo. Assessee's Contentions: The assessees argued that the additions were a result of inadvertent mistakes in filing their returns, specifically concerning income from trucks under Section 44AE. They stated that they owned only three trucks each, but incorrect figures were entered in the ITRs, leading to the substantial additions by the CPC. They also highlighted that rectification applications under Section 154 were unsuccessful. The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was attributed to the time taken in pursuing rectification and lack of proper advice. They prayed for condonation of delay and remittance of the issues to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for de novo adjudication. Revenue's Contentions: The Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and argued that the delay was significant.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AE,Section 143(1),Section 250,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE SMC BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal, CA
Hearing: 14/10/2026Pronounced: 16/10/2026

ITA No. 322/NAG/2026 filed by the assessee (Mohinder Singh) is directed against the order of Ld. ADDL/JCIT (Appeals)-1, Visakhapatnam (for short, “CIT(A)”) dated 07.01.2026 passed u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of intimation dated 10.02.2017 passed u/sec. 143(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16. ITA No. 327/NAG/2028 filed by the assessee (Ramtirath Bawa) is directed against the order of Ld. ADDL/JCIT (Appeals), (Mohinder Singh & Ano.)

Panaji dated 20.02.2026 passed u/sec. 250 of the Act which is arising out of intimation dated 29.09.2016 passed u/sec. 143(1) of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. As the is

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 44AE

All 159 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AE →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →