BHIMSHANKAR GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHPATH SANSTHA,SATARA vs. ITO, WARD-1, SATARA, SATARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1327/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 October 2026AY 2018-192 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before it, considering the affidavit filed by the assessee. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 52 days, stating that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a sufficient cause for the delay of 412 days before the Ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to condone this delay and decide the appeal on its merits. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ratio is that procedural delays, if sufficiently explained, should not bar substantive justice, and matters should be decided on merits where possible.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Bhimashankar Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahpath Sanstha Ltd., filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench 'A', against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi. The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2018-19 and emanated from an Assessment Order passed under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of 52 days. The assessee had also faced a delay of 412 days in filing their appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The ITAT heard the revenue's representative but no one appeared for the assessee.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT should condone the delay of 52 days in filing the appeal by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)? (Question of procedure). The assessee, by not appearing, did not present arguments. The revenue, through the Addl. CIT, was represented and heard. The ITAT noted that the assessee had filed an affidavit explaining the delay before it and had also provided an elaborate explanation for the delay before the Ld. CIT(A). The ITAT considered substantial justice to be more important than procedural delay and that no assessee gains by filing belatedly. The revenue did not present arguments against condoning the delay before the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar, 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 2018-19 on 22.11.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 26.03.2023.

2.

There was a delay of 52 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. We have perused the affidavit and convinced that there was sufficient cause for delay. Substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. No assessee is going to gain by filing the appeal belatedly. Accordingly, delay condoned.

ITA No.1327/PUN/2026

Findings and Analysis:

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the records. In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay of 412 days. The assessee had filed an elaborate explanation before the Ld. CIT(A) with a request to condone the delay. The Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the said explanation in the order. In this case, on perusal of the submission, we are convinced that there was a sufficient cause for delay. Accordingly, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. Considering the totality of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we deem it fit, in the interest justice, to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 22nd October, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 22-10-2026 Ravi Kumar आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्डफ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Sunil Kumar More Digitally signed by Sunil Kumar More Date: 2026.10.25 12:30:42 +05'30' Assistant Registrar आयकरअपीलीयअदिकरण, 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 →