NILESHKUMAR LALCHAND LODHA, RUI, RAHATA vs. AO, AHMEDNAGAR, MAHARASHTRA

ITA 3408/PUN/2026Status: HeardITAT Pune08 October 2026AY 2013-146 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there was no sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 827 days in filing the appeal. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee, the Tribunal noted that inordinate delay warrants a strict approach. The assessee's conduct was consistently non-compliant, both before the AO and the CIT(A). The reason provided for the delay, the father's illness, was vague and unsupported by any evidence such as a medical certificate. The Tribunal found the explanation to be insufficient to condone the significant delay. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed on the grounds of delay, without delving into the merits of the assessment order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Nileshkumar Lalchand Lodha, is in appeal before the ITAT against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, dated 28.12.2023, which upheld the assessment order dated 16.03.2022 passed under sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment was made ex-parte for Assessment Year 2013-14, with the Assessing Officer (AO) noting that the assessee had not filed a return. The AO received information of cash deposits of Rs. 23,00,000/- in the assessee's savings bank account and issued notices under section 148 and 142(1), which were not complied with. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) belatedly and again failed to comply with notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. The assessee's appeal to the ITAT was filed with a delay of 827 days.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there was a sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 827 days in filing the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as required by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others, turning on the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contention: The assessee contended that the delay was due to the father's illness, as stated in the condonation petition. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not explicitly argue on the merits of the delay but implicitly supported the dismissal by highlighting the assessee's consistent non-compliance throughout the proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Ms. Shelly Maheshwari (virtual)
For Respondent: Smt. Deepa Hiray, Addl. CIT

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for AY 2013-14 on 28.12.2023, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 16.03.2022. Findings and Analysis :

2.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. As per the assessment order, the assessee had not filed return of income for AY 2013-14. The Assessing Officer had received information regarding cash deposits of Rs.23,00,000/- in savings bank account by the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notice

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 →