MADHU LAXMIKANT KEDIA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 785/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 October 2026AY 2016-176 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments. Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, and Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO, the Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially when the delay is non-deliberate. Refusing to condone delay can defeat the cause of justice by preventing a meritorious matter from being heard. The Tribunal held that a justice-oriented and liberal approach should be adopted. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after granting an opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to make submissions without seeking adjournments. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Madhu Laxmikant Kedia, an individual and non-filer, is appealing an order dated 24.12.2025 by the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, for assessment year 2016-17. The Assessing Officer reopened the case under Section 147, believing income had escaped assessment due to the purchase and sale of immovable property. The assessee did not provide details, leading to an assessment under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B, with additions of Rs. 51,07,208/- under Section 69, Rs. 22,96,568/- under Section 56(2)(vii), and Rs. 71,00,000/- as short-term capital gains. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed due to a delay of 472 days in filing.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal on account of delay in filing, instead of condoning the delay and deciding the appeal on merits, considering the assessee is a senior citizen and homemaker, and the delay was due to the negligence of her tax consultant (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of condonation of delay). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that as a senior citizen and homemaker, the delay was unintentional and caused by her tax consultant's negligence. Relying on various decisions, the assessee contended that the CIT(A)/NFAC should have condoned the delay in the interest of justice and decided the matter on merit. The assessee sought restoration of the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a decision on merits. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue relied heavily on the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69,Section 56(2)(vii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Jain
For Respondent: Ms. Bhavya I.V., Jt. CIT-DR

PER R.K. PANDA, VP:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.12.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2016-17. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in dismissing the appeal on account of delay in filing of the same by 472 days.

3.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and non-filer. Information was available with the Assessing Officer that the assessee has purchased an immovable property for Rs.68,17,576/- and also received sale

2 consideration on sale of immovable property at Rs.71,00,000/-. He, therefore, has reason to believe that income of the assessee has escaped assessment. He accordingly reopened the case after recording reasons as per the provisions of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. Since the assessee failed to submit any details during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,45,03,776/- by making addition of Rs.51,07,208/- u/s 69, Rs.22,96,568/- u/s 56(2)(vii) and Rs.71 lakhs on account of short term capital gains.

4.

Since the assessee filed the appeal with a delay of 472 days before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation.

5.

Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

6.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and is a homemaker. She had never filed her return of income and the only source of her income is capital gain. He further submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal was purely unintentional and occurred due to negligence of the tax consultant who was appointed by the assessee to handle her tax matters. Relying

3 on various decisions he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have condoned the delay in filing of the appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC considering the age of the assessee and the matter should have been decided on merit. He accordingly submitted that in the interest of justice the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit.

7.

The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.

8.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that due to the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC by 472 days, he did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee is a senior citizen and a homemaker who had never filed her return of income. The tax consultant who was entrusted with the responsibility of filing the appeal in time did not file the same for which there was a delay. When the assessee cme to know of such non-filing of the appeal, she appointed another person to file the appeal and therefore, there was a delay in filing of the same. It is also his submission that in the interest of justice, the matter

4 should be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide on merit.

9.

We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.

10.

We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under:

“14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.”

11.

We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Shankar Jaiswal vs. ITO vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26310-26311/2024 order dated 31.01.2025 has held that a justice oriented and liberal approach ought to be 5 adopted while considering the aspect of condoning the delay involved in filing of the appeal.

12.

In the light of the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited (supra) and considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with the direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit and as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make her submissions, if any, on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

13.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th October, 2026. (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 13th October, 2026 GCVSR

6 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 1. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent

3.

The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune

4.

DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, //// Sunil Kumar More More Date: 2026.10.14 15:25:45 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →