BHAVOOK CHANDRA PRAKASH TRIPATHI,CHHATRAPATI SAMBHAJINAGAR vs. CIT(APPEALS), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1293/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 October 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 111 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, finding that the assessee had established a 'sufficient cause' for the delay, citing the judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Regarding the appeal before the CIT(A), the Tribunal noted that the assessee had inadvertently filed the appeal before the ITAT instead of the CIT(A), which was considered a sufficient cause for the delay before the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal for adjudication. Considering the peculiar facts and the lack of adjudication on merits by the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the issues raised in the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law under section 250(6). The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The assessee was directed to cooperate and respond promptly.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bhavook Chandra Prakash Tripathi, filed an appeal before the ITAT against the order of the CIT(Appeals), Pune-13, for Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeal was filed belatedly by 111 days. The assessee's original return declared an income of Rs. 2,46,99,500, which was assessed at Rs. 2,53,38,900 under section 143(3). The PCIT opined that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, specifically regarding wrongly allowed expenses of Rs. 51,21,958. The PCIT set aside the assessment order and directed reconsideration. The subsequent assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B resulted in additions of Rs. 51,21,958 (expenses), Rs. 2,39,400 (annual lettable value), and Rs. 29,84,947 (unexplained investment). The CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer's actions. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal filed by the assessee, which is belated by 111 days, and if so, whether the delay should be condoned based on sufficient cause. - Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to inadvertently filing it before the ITAT, which constitutes a sufficient cause. The assessee also contended that the Assessing Officer did not provide adequate opportunity to make submissions, violating principles of natural justice, and the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the case on merits. - Revenue's contention: The Revenue relied on the order of the CIT(A). 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the issues on merits and whether the matter should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. - Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 11 months before him and that there was no adjudication on merits. The assessee also raised the issue of violation of natural justice by the AO. - Revenue's contention: The Revenue relied on the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 154,Section 250,Section 263,Section 144B,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH ‘A’, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Pronounced: 12.10.2026

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, पुणेपीठ�, पुणे INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE BENCH ‘A’, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 1293/PUN/2026 (िनधा�रणवष�/AssessmentYear:2015-16) BHAVOOK CHANDRA PRAKASH CIT(APPEALS) TRIPATHI CIT(A), PUNE-13 PLOT NO. K-221, MIDC AREA, PUNE-411066, MAHARASHTRA WALUJ, CHH. SAMBHAJINAGAR, Vs. AURANGABAD-431136, MAHARASHTRA अपीलाथ�Appellant ��यथ� Respondent Permanent Account Number of Assessee: ABBPT7159D अपीलाथ��ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Hari Krishan ��यथ��ारा/Respondentrepresented by: Shri Uodol Raj Singh सुनवाईक�तारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 07.10.2026 घोषणाक�तारीख/Date of pronouncement: 12.10.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the Assesseeagainst the order of Ld. CIT(A), Pune-13dated 27th October, 2025/30th September, 2025 read with Rectification order passed u/s.154 r.w.s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) in relation to the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. We find the appeal before this Tribunal has been filed by the assessee belatedly by 111 days. Assessee has filed an Affidavit stating the reasons. 3. On perusal of the said reasons, we find that assessee has established the existence of ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. Therefore, the delay in filing of appeal is hereby condoned and admit the appeal for adjudication in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag&Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji&Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in 1

ITA 1293/PUN/2026 BHAVOOK CHANDRA PRAKASH TRIPATHI the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382. 4. Facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 31.10.2015 declaring income of Rs.2,46,99,500/-. Assessment u/s.143(3) was concluded determining the income of the assessee at Rs.2,53,38,900/-. Thereafter, ld. PCI on examining the records of the assessment was of the opinion that the said order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. Assessee made compliance to the notices u/s.263 of the Act. On due consideration of the assessee’s explanation ld. PCIT found that ld. AO has wrongly allowed the expenses to the tune of Rs.51,21,958/-. Accordingly, ld. PCIT has set- aside the assessment order dated 26.12.2017 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act and directed him to reconsider the addition. Pursuant to the directions of ld. PCIT, ld.Assessing Officer concluded the assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s.263 r.w.s.144B of the Act making (i) addition of Rs.51,21,958/- towards expenses; (i) addition of Rs.2,39,400/- towards Annual Lettable value and (iii) addition of Rs.29,84,947/- towards unexplained investment. 5. Aggrieved assessee challenged the assessment before ld.CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) countenanced the action of the Assessing Officer. Now the assessee has approached this Tribunal. 6. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted despite reasonable cause ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 11 months and apart from this there is no adjudication of the case on merits. Further, ld. Assessing Officer pursuant to direction also has not provided adequate opportunity for making its submissions and has passed the order violating the principles of natural justice. 7. Ld. DR on the other hand has relied on the order of ld.CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material on record. We find in the instant case initially the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s.143(3). Thereafter, ld. PCIT on examination of the records find that ld. AO has 2

ITA 1293/PUN/2026 BHAVOOK CHANDRA PRAKASH TRIPATHI wrongly allowed the expenses claimed by the assessee and set aside the assessment and directed him to reconsider the same. Subsequently, ld. Assessing Officer made the additions which have been referred above. Before this Tribunal, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that ld. Assessing Officer has not afforded proper opportunity and has passed the order without giving any time for making compliance and further ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay of 11 months despite the existence of ‘sufficient cause’. 9. On going through the reasons furnished by the assessee for delay in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A), which is stated to be that assessee has inadvertently filed appeal before the ITAT instead of filing appeal before ld.CIT(A). On perusal of the said reasons, we find that assessee has established the existence of ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. Therefore, the delay in filing of the appeal before ld.CIT(A) is hereby condoned andld.CIT(A) is directed to admit the appeal for adjudication in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag&Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji&Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382. 10. Considering the peculiar facts of the case and there being no adjudication on merits of the case by ld.CIT(A), we in the larger interest of justice deem it proper to restore the issues raised in the appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Ld. CIT(A) shall provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee in the set aside proceedings and decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is directed to the cooperate with the Department in the set aside proceedings and update her registered email id and contract details on the ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to respond on the appointed date of hearing before ld.CIT(A) without seeking any adjournment unless otherwise required. Impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A) is set aside and grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA 1293/PUN/2026 BHAVOOK CHANDRA PRAKASH TRIPATHI 11. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th October, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (R.K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 12th October, 2026 Sujeet/DOC Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.10.13 11:08:06 +05'30'

Copy to: BHAVOOK CHANDRA PRAKASH TRIPATHI, PLOT NO. K-221, MIDC AREA, WALUJ, CHH. 1 SAMBHAJINAGAR, AURANGABAD-431136, MAHARASHTRA CIT(APPEALS), 2 CIT(A), PUNE-13, PUNE-411066, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, PUNEBENCH 5 GUARD FILE आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →