SHIVAJI SHANKAR BORATE,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, PANVEL, PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3070/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 October 2026AY 2013-143 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 ITAT held that the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC failed to follow the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which extended the limitation for filing appeals up to 31.05.2022. The assessee's appeal, filed on 24.02.2022, was well within this extended period. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The matter was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh on its merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to respond to notices and produce relevant documents without seeking adjournments. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shivaji Shankar Borate, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, challenging an order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal was listed for hearing on 15.09.2026. Neither the assessee nor their representative appeared, nor was an adjournment application filed. The ITAT noted that the original assessment order was passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act on 25.09.2021. The assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC belatedly by 116 days, which led to its dismissal. However, the ITAT observed that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had extended the limitation period up to 31.05.2022. The assessee's appeal was filed on 24.02.2022, which was prior to this extended due date, indicating no actual delay before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal due to delay, without considering the Hon'ble Supreme Court's suo motu extension of limitation due to the COVID-19 pandemic? Assessee's Contention: The assessee, though not present, had argued implicitly through the ITAT's observation that the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was within the extended period of limitation granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil No.3 of 2020, and therefore, the dismissal on grounds of delay was erroneous. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, represented by Shri Suresh Gaikwad, did not present any arguments on this specific issue before the ITAT. The ITAT proceeded to decide the appeal based on the material on record and the Ld. DR's presence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Shri Suresh Gaikwad
Hearing: 15.09.2026Pronounced: 30.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.3070/PUN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shivaji Shankar Borate, Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Panvel. Room No.2, KL4 Building No.3, Sector 6E, Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai- 410218. PAN : AQHPB8543Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Suresh Gaikwad Date of hearing : 15.09.2026 Date of pronouncement : 30.10.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.04.2026 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2013-14. 2. When the appeal was called for hearing neither anybody appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed despite intimation of date of hearing,

2 ITA No.3070/PUN/2026 therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record as well as after hearing Ld. DR. 3. In this regard, we find that the assessment order dated 25.09.2021 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act was challenged by the assessee by filing an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC belatedly i.e. with a delay of 116 days due to which it was dismissed. We further find that due to Covid pandemic, Hon’ble Supreme Court in suo moto application Civil No.3 of 2020 has already extended the limitation upto 31.05.2022 and since the due date to file the first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) falls on 25.10.2021 and the first appeal was filed on 24.02.2022 which is prior to 31.05.2022, therefore, apparently there was no delay before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, however Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC failed to follow the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein the limitation to file appeal was also extended upto 31.05.2022. 4. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in view of our above discussion, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and without going into merits of the case, restore the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh and as

3 ITA No.3070/PUN/2026 per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC in this regard and to produce relevant documents, submissions and evidences in support of his grounds of appeal without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 30th day of October, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 30th October, 2026. Sujeet/DOC आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Sunil Kumar Digitally signed by // True Copy // Sunil Kumar More Assistant Registrar More आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Date: 2026.11.06 12:15:07 +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 →