MUZAMMIL MOHIUDDIN SHAIKH ,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WD-2 , AHMEDNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3094/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 October 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, citing the assessee's affidavit detailing genuine and unavoidable circumstances, including his son's medical condition and family hardships. The Tribunal condoned the delay, prioritizing substantial justice over procedural delay. Regarding the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, the ITAT held that the Ld. CIT(A) was obligated to decide the appeal on merits as per Section 250(6) of the Act. Citing the Bombay High Court's decision in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the Tribunal ruled that the Ld. CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The Ld. CIT(A) must dispose of the appeal by stating points for determination and rendering a decision on each point with reasons. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Muzammil Mohiuddin Shaikh, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune Bench against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2016-17. The appeal was filed against an Assessment Order passed under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. There was a delay of 490 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The assessee provided an affidavit explaining the delay due to serious medical conditions of his minor son, continuous medical treatment, time taken for tax audit, issues with his tax consultant, and severe family hardship. The ITAT condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause and emphasizing substantial justice over procedural delay. During the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee failed to file replies to notices issued for hearings, leading the Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance without discussing the merits.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there was sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT, and if so, should the delay be condoned? The assessee argued that the delay was due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances, including his son's serious medical condition, medical treatments, tax audit completion, issues with his tax consultant, and family hardships. The assessee contended that the delay was bona fide and not intentional, and condoning it would serve substantial justice. The revenue did not record any specific arguments regarding the delay. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits, as mandated by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? The assessee argued that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) by dismissing the appeal without deciding the grounds on merits. The revenue did not record any specific arguments regarding this procedural aspect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 250(6),Section 251,Section 251(1)(a),Section 251(1)(b),Section 251(2),Section 246A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

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

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 2016-17 on 12.08.2025, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 20.12.2024.

2.

There was a delay of 490 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. The same is reproduced here as under : “1. I am the appellant in the accompanying appeal filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal and well acquainted with the facts of the case. 2. That the appeal has been filed against the order of the learned CIT(A) dated 12.08.2025 for Assessment Year 2016-17.

ITA No. 3094/PUN/2026

3.

That there is a delay in filing the present appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. 4. That the delay has occurred due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances, including: o Serious medical condition of my minor son suffering from Type-1 Diabetes requiring continuous insulin injections, monitoring, and hospital visits; o Continuous medical treatment and supervision from specialists at Aurangabad and Pune; o Time consumed in arranging and completing tax audit for the relevant year; o Dependence on tax consultant who failed to properly handle appellate proceedings; o Severe family hardship and medical exigencies. 5. That due to the above circumstances, I could not file the appeal within the prescribed time limit. 6. That the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but due to bona fide and unavoidable reasons beyond my control. 7. That I have a strong case on merits and no prejudice will be caused to the Revenue if the delay is condoned. 8. That I pray this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly condone the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice.”

2.1 Thus, in these backgrounds, we are 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.

Findings and Analysis:

3.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, during the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) issued notices for hearing to the assessee on 21.05.2025, 26.06.2025 and 25.07.2025, however, the assessee failed to file

ITA No. 3094/PUN/2026

reply to the said notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non- compliance without discussing the merits of the case. We are of the opinion that there was a sufficient cause for the assessee for non-compliance before the Ld. CIT(A).

3.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the grounds of appeal which is mandatory u/s 250(6) of the Act.

4.

The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (Bombay) / [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) asunder : Quote, “8.From the aforesaid provisions, it is very clear once an appeal is preferred before the CIT(A), then in disposing of the appeal, he is obliged to make such further inquiry that he thinks fit or direct the Assessing Officer to make further inquiry and report the result of the same to him as found in Section 250(4) of the Act. Further Section 250(6) of the Act obliges the CIT(A) to dispose of an appeal in writing after stating the points for determination and then render a decision on each of the points which arise for consideration with reasons in support. Section 251(1)(a) and (b) of the Act provide that while disposing of appeal the CIT(A) would have the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul an assessment and/or penalty. Besides Explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 251 of the Act also makes it clear that while considering the appeal, the CIT(A) would be entitled to consider and decide any issue arising in the proceedings before him in appeal filed for its consideration, even if the issue is not raised by the appellant in its appeal before the CIT(A). Thus once an assessee files an appeal under Section 246A of the Act, it is not open to him as of right to withdraw or not press the appeal. In fact the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits. In fact with effect from 1st June, 2001 the power of the CIT(A) to set aside the order of the Assessing Officer and restore it to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order stands withdrawn. Therefore, it would be noticed that the powers of the CIT(A) is coterminous with that of the Assessing Officer i.e. he can do all that Assessing Officer could do. Therefore just as it is not open to the Assessing Officer to not complete the assessment by allowing the

ITA No. 3094/PUN/2026

assessee to withdraw its return of income, it is not open to the assessee in appeal to withdraw and/or the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the assessee. This is amply clear from the Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from the provisions of the Act.” Unquote.

4.1 Thus, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has categorically held that Ld. CIT(A) has to decide the appeal on merit and Ld. CIT(A) does not have any power to dismiss appeal for non- prosecution.

5.

In view of the above, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set-aside to Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 15th October, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 15-10-2026 Ravi Kumar आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/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 र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, Digitally signed by Sunil Kumar Sunil Kumar More More // True Copy // Date: 2026.10.25 10:28:47 +05'30' Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण,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 →