MOHINI BALASAHEB KAWDE,PUNE vs. WARD 7(1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2873/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 October 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the arguments and the material on record. It noted that the appeal was reopened based on information regarding a Rs. 66.65 lakh credit from property sale, which was later withdrawn. The Assessing Officer made an addition due to non-response, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a 993-day delay without condoning it. The Tribunal examined the reasons for the delay, which included the assessee's limited education, dependence on others, demise of parents, and issues with the tax consultant. Citing 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, the Tribunal found the reasons for delay to be genuine and deserving of condonation. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on the merits, the Tribunal, following principles of natural justice, restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and update her details. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Mohini Balasaheb Kawde, filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14 declaring Rs. 76,040. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on information from the DDIT (Investigation) that Rs. 66.65 lakh was credited to her bank account from the sale of immovable property, which was later withdrawn. Notices under Section 148A(d) and 148 were issued. The assessee did not respond, leading the Assessing Officer to make an addition of Rs. 50,42,500 as Long Term Capital Gain. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but with a delay of 993 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay or adjudicating on merits. The assessee is now before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 993 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2013-14 should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that the delay was due to genuine reasons beyond her control, including her limited education (6th standard), dependence on parents and tax consultant, the unfortunate demise of her parents, and the tax consultant's failure to take proper precautions. She stated that she had to change her tax consultant. The assessee relied 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. Revenue's contention: The Departmental Representative relied on the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A(d),Section 142(1),Section 143(1)(a)

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 2873/PUN/2026 (िनधा�रणवष�/AssessmentYear:2013-14) MOHINI BALASAHEB KAWDE INCOME TAX OFFICER, B 2, MUGUL GARDEN , LANE WARD 7(1), PUNE NO5, KOREGAON PARK, PUNE Vs. 411001, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA, PUNE-411001, MAHARASHTRA अपीलाथ�Appellant ��यथ� Respondent Permanent Account Number of CLYPK7387M Assessee: अपीलाथ��ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Neelesh Khandelwal ��यथ��ारा/Respondentrepresented by: Shri Uodol Raj Singh सुनवाईक�तारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 06.10.2026 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. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ NFAC, dated 14May, 2026 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual and has filed the return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 declaring total income at Rs.76,040/-. Return processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act. However, based on the information received from the DDIT(Investigation), Pune that an amount of Rs.66.65 lakh has been credited in the bank

ITA 2873/PUN/2026 MOHINI BALASAHEB KAWDE account of the assessee through a cheque which is out of sale consideration of an immovable property and later on has withdrawn the amount, case of the assessee was reopened u/s.147 of the Act. Notice u/s.148 of the Act in pursuant to Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.3005/2022 dated 04.05.2022 calling upon the assessee to furnish the requisite details. Order u/s.148A(d), notices u/s.148 and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. However, there was no response from the side of the assessee therefore, the Assessing Officer on the basis of information available and return filed by the assessee completed the assessment by making addition of Rs.50,42,500/- towards Long Term Capital Gain. 3. Assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A) but with delay of 993 days which came to be dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) without condoning the delay and without any adjudication on merits of the case. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has furnished the application for condonation of delay before ld.CIT(A) stating the ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal with delay. The delay is due to genuine reasons and beyond the control of the assessee. However, ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. 5. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand relied on the order of ld.CIT(A) 6. We have considered the arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find that the case of the assessee was reopened based on the information received from the DDIT(Investigation), Pune that an amount of Rs.66.65 lakh has been credited to the bank account out of sale of immovable property and later on withdrew the same. In the absence of

ITA 2873/PUN/2026 MOHINI BALASAHEB KAWDE furnishing of reply, ld. Assessing Officer made addition and assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A) with delay of 993 days which came to be dismissed by ld.CIT(A). 7. We have gone through the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal before ld.CIT(A) wherein the main reasons are that the assessee is only educated upto 6th standard and was entirely dependent on her parents and the Tax Consultant. Unfortunately the parents of the assessee passed away and the tax consultant didn’t took proper precaution for filing of the appeal in time. Eventually, assessee had to change the Tax Consultant. On going through the averments made in the condonation application, we are of the considered view that delay in filing of the appeal before ld.CIT(A) deserve to be condoned by virtue 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. We therefore condone the delay before ld.CIT(A) and admit the appeal for adjudication. 8. Since there is no adjudication by ld.CIT(A) on merits of the case, we, following the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to restore the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. 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 present 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 2873/PUN/2026 MOHINI BALASAHEB KAWDE 9. 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 Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.10.13 11:35:26 +05'30' Copy to: MOHINI BALASAHEB KAWDE, B 2, MUGUL GARDEN , LANE NO5, KOREGAON PARK, PUNE 411001, 1 MAHARASHTRA, INDIA, PUNE-411001, MAHARASHTRA WARD 7(1), 65-80, SHANKAR RAO LOHANE MARG, P & T COLONY, SALISBURY PARK, 2 GULTEKDI, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA 411037, PUNE, PUNE-411037, 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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →