DINKAR BABAN PAWAR,MALEGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, MALEGAON, MALEGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3129/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 October 2026AY 2015-20167 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adopted a liberal, pragmatic, and justice-oriented approach while considering the assessee's application for condonation of delay. Citing the Supreme Court judgments in B. Madhuri Goud and MST Katiji, the Tribunal emphasized that technical considerations should not be given undue weight when substantial justice is paramount. The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was supported by sufficient cause, considering the assessee's explanation of lack of knowledge and guidance. Consequently, the Tribunal condoned the delay. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the disputed issues were remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee was to be provided with an adequate opportunity of hearing and was directed to cooperate in submitting information for early disposal. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The decision in ITA No. 3127/PUN/2026 was applied mutatis mutandis to ITA Nos. 3129 & 3130/PUN/2026.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dinkar Baban Pawar, filed three appeals (ITA Nos. 3127, 3129 & 3130/PUN/2026) against the orders of the CIT(A)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2015-16. These appeals challenged the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the assessee's appeals in limine due to delay. The original assessment proceedings were initiated under Section 148A and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following information from the Insight Portal regarding substantial cash deposits in the assessee's savings bank account and non-filing of the return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 40,54,180/- under Section 69A and assessed total income at Rs. 42,03,560/-, passing an order under Section 147 r.w.s 144 and 144B. Subsequently, penalties were levied under Section 271(1)(b) (Rs. 40,000/-), Section 271F, and Section 271(1)(c) for non-compliance with statutory notices. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeals for delay, citing insufficient cause.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeals before it, thereby dismissing the appeals in limine, contrary to the principles of substantial justice? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: The delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) was not intentional but due to lack of knowledge and guidance regarding income tax proceedings. The assessee filed separate affidavits explaining the reasonable cause for the delay and sought condonation. The CIT(A) failed to consider these facts and the condonation application. The assessee relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy and Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji & others regarding a liberal and pragmatic approach to condoning delays. Revenue's contentions: The Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A), implying that the CIT(A) correctly found no sufficient cause for the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 271(1)(b),Section 271F,Section 271(1)(c),Section 148A,Section 148,Section 69A,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE

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

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH: A BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA Nos. 3127, 3129 &3130/PUN/2026 (निर्धारणवर्ा/Asst. Year:2015-16) Permanent Account Number: CGQPP6831G Dinkar Baban Pawar, ITO, Ward 1, 466/66, Nandgaon Road, Malegaon, Post-Saundane, Maharashtra Vs. Dist-Nashik-423208 Maharashtra. (प्रत्यर्थीRespondent) (अपीलधर्थीAppellant)

निर्धारितीद्वधिध/Assessee represented Shri S.K. Sethi .AR (through Virtual) by: िधजस्‍वद्वधिध/Revenue represented by: Shri.Rajesh Haladkar. Sr. DR

सुिवधईकीतधिीख/Date of hearing: 14-10-2026 घोषणधकीतधिीख/Date of pronouncement: 16-10-2026 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM:- The three appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of CIT(A)/NFAC Delhi for A.Y.2015-16 in (i) ITA 3127/PUN/2026 against the order u/sec250 of the Act emanating from the order under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act (ii) ITA.NO. 3129/PUN/2026 against the order under u/sec250 of the Act emanating from the order under Section 271F of the Act and (iii) ITA No.3130/PUN/2026 against the order u/sec250 of the Act emanating from the order under Section 271(1)(C) of the Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal in these appeals challenging the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC in not condoning the delay in filing the appeals and sustaining the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer.

2.

At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of (i) 131 days in filling the appeal ITA 3127/PUN/2026 (ii) 132 days in filling the appeal ITA No. 3130/PUN/2026 and (iii) 100 days in filling the appeal ITA No. 3129/PUN/2026. Further the Ld.AR mentioned that the delay was not intentional and filed separate affidavits of the assessee for condonation of delay. On consideration of facts and information mentioned in the affidavits, there is a reasonable cause explained and the Ld.DR has no specific objections. Accordingly, the delay is condoned and these appeals are admitted.

3.

Since the issues involved in these appeals are common, identical and interlinked and for the sake of convenience, we shall take up ITA No. 3127/PUN/2026 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 as a lead case and facts narrated.

4.

The brief facts of the case are that, the Income Tax Department has received information through Insight Portal under Non-filing of Return (NMS) in accordance with the risk management strategy formulated by the CBDT (Board) that the assessee has made substantial cash deposits in the savings bank account in the F.Y.2014-15 and the assessee has not filed the return of income for the A.Y.2015-16. The Assessing officer has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued a show cause notice to the assessee under Clause (b) of Section 148A of the Income Tax Act but there was no compliance, and with the prior approval from the Competent Authority, the A.O has passed the order u/s 148A(d) of the I.T. Act on 04/04/2022 and accordingly notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on the same date i.e 4.04.2022. Incompliance to the Notice u/sec148 of the Act, the assessee has filed the return of income on 15.04.2022 disclosing a total income of Rs.1,49,380/- .Further notice u/sec 143(2) and u/sec 142(1) of the Act was issued from time to time calling for explanations in respect of cash deposits and other details and there was no compliance. The A.O has also issued show cause to the assessee but there was no response from the assessee. The A.O find that the assessee has not made submissions on the disputed issue in spite of providing adequate opportunities of hearing and finally the A.O considering the information available on record has invoked the provisions of section 144 of the Act and issued notice u/sec133(6) of the Act on the bank and obtained the bank statements The A.O dealt on the information in the bank statements and made addition of cash deposits of Rs. 40,54,180/- under Section 69A of the Act and assessed the total income of Rs. 42,03,560/- and passed the order u/sec 147 r.w.s 144 and r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 15.03.2024. Subsequently, the AO has initiated penalty proceedings u/sec271(1)(b) of the Act and issued notices/show cause notice and the assessee was provided opportunities to explain the reasons for non compliance of four statutory notices u/sec142(1) of the Act in assessment proceedings on various dates and the assessee has not filed any submissions/ explanations. Finally the A.O has levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- for each non compliance notice aggregating to Rs.40,000/- and passed the order u/sec 271(1)(b) of the act dated 09.09.2024.

5.

Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) find that there is a delay of 193 days in filling the appeal and the assessee has not explained the sufficient reasonable cause for the delay and the CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not considered the facts that the assessee has received the penalty order and has filed the appeal before appellate authorities and the delay was not a wanton act but due to lack of knowledge and guidance on the income tax proceedings and the assessee has filed the condonation application explaining the reasonable cause. Further the Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has good case on merits and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate with the material evidences before the lower authorities. Per Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie, the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the facts that there is no proper compliance by the assessee in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the delay in filling the appeal was not explained with reasonable cause. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and there could be various reasons for no proper compliance. Whereas the assessee in Form No.35 made a request for condonation of delay in filling the appeal explaining the sufficient cause and was dealt by the CIT(A) in the order. We considering the facts, provisions and the condonation of delay request, are of the opinion there is a reasonable cause in filing of the appeal with delay and there is no benefit derived in causing delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case ofB. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693, has held that the following principles must be kept in mind while considering the application for condonation of delay; (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate cause of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

(v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. (viii)There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such litigation. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, is representation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.” 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji & others (167 ITR 471) (SC) has observed as under :

“The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting s. 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on "merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice—that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the "State" is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact, experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherent bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note- making, file- pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community does not deserve a litigant non grata status. The Courts, therefore, have to be informed of the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression "sufficient cause". So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even- handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits.” 9. We respectfully follow the observations and ratio of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited(supra) and find that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT (Appeals) by the assessee is supported with sufficient cause and therefore, pragmatic approach should have been considered and we condone the delay.Therefore, considering the facts, circumstances, submissions and principles of natural justice, we shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case with evidences and information. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issue to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal. And the grounds of appeal of the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA Nos. 3129 & 3130/PUN/2026 for A.Y. 2015-16 11. As the facts and circumstances in these two penalty appeals are identical/ interlinked/similar to ITA No.3127/PUN/2026 for the A.Y 2015-16(except variance in figures and delay in filling the appeals before the CIT(A)) and the decision rendered in above paragraphs 7 to 10 would apply 6 mutatis mutandis for these appeals also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the assessee in these two appeals are allowed for statistical purpose.

12.

In the result, the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 16th October, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- DIPAK P RIPOTE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Pune/पुणे दिन ांक / Dated: 16th October,2026. Abhishek mohan आिेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अिीि र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. तिभ गीय प्रतितनति, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, “A” बेंच, पुणे/ DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. ग र्डफ़ इि / Guard File. 5. //true copy//

आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, Sunil Kumar Digitally signed by Sunil Kumar More More Date: 2026.10.24 17:06:44 +05'30' Assistant Registrar, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →