KAMLESH ATMARAM PAI PANANDIKER,MARGAO GOA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1(1) PANAJI, PANAJI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 250/PAN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 October 2026AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal, 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. The Tribunal found that the delay was not deliberate or intentional and that there was a 'reasonable cause' preventing timely filing. Considering the assessee's prayer and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to afford one more opportunity to the assessee. Without delving into the merits of the case, all issues raised in the appeal, including additional grounds, were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide updated contact details and remain vigilant. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Kamlesh Atmaram Pai Panandiker, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2012-13. The appeal was filed with a delay of 23 days. The assessee's original return declared an income of Rs. 20,16,350/-. The case was reopened under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1.15 crore. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed primarily due to non-prosecution and failure to furnish written submissions and documentary evidence. The present appeal challenges the order of the NFAC, Delhi, dated 30.05.2025, which emanated from the assessment order dated 30.12.2019.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned, considering the reasons provided by the assessee. Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that due to reasons beyond their control, they could not comply with the notices issued by the CIT(A), leading to the dismissal of their appeal. They prayed for an opportunity to present their grounds of appeal with relevant documents and submissions in the interest of justice. Revenue's contention: The Revenue relied on the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI DB BENCH, PANAJI

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri R. Pikale, CA (virtual)
For Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.08.2026Pronounced: 12.10.2026

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 30.05.2025 of ld. NFAC, Delhi emanating out of Assessment Order dated 30.12.2019 passed u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

Registry has pointed out that the appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed the appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 23 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit stating the reasons which led to delay. On due consideration of the reasons, we find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time limit. We find that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional and therefore placing reliance on the 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

2 Kamlesh Atmaram Pai Panandiker

Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 23 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to reasons beyond control of the assessee, the assessee could not make any compliances to the notices issued by ld.CIT(A), resulting into dismissal of appeal. He therefore prayed that in the interest of justice assessee may be given an opportunity so as to enable him to plead the grounds of appeal by producing the relevant documents and submissions.

4.

On the other hand ld. Sr. DR relied on the order of ld.CIT(A).

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and stated to be engaged in the business of Mining. Assessee filed his return of income on 05.07.2012 declaring income of Rs.20,16,350/- which was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, case of the assessee reopened u/s.147 of the Act. After considering the submissions of the assessee, ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment making addition of Rs.1.15 crore. Assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but failed to succeed mainly due to non- prosecution/non-furnishing of written submissions/documentary evidences.

6.

We however considering the prayer made by the assessee and in the interest of justice being fair to both the parties, deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee. In view thereof, without dwelling upon the merits of the case, all the issues raised in the appeal including additional grounds of appeal are 3 Kamlesh Atmaram Pai Panandiker

restored to the file of Id.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication after affording due opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 12th October 2026 under Rule 34(5) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Panaji; दिन ंक / Dated : 12th October, 2026. Satish Satish Kumar Kumar Madishetty Madishetty Date: 2026.10.12 18:17:41 +05'30'

4 Kamlesh Atmaram Pai Panandiker

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent.

2.3.

The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, Panaji 4. ‘DB’ Bench / DR, ITAT, Panaji ‘DB’ Bench ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

////

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →