BABASAHEB BHAGAWAN ATKIRE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE

BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1368 and 1369/PUN/2025
Assessment Year : 2017-18

Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire,
S.No.50/3, Flat No.9, Floor No.1,
Kure Plazapune,
Opp. Konark Pooram Main Gate,
Kondhwa Khurd,
Pune 411048, Maharashtra
PAN : AFEPA8628K
Vs. DCIT, Circle-7,
Pune
Appellant

Respondent

आदेश / ORDER

These two appeals filed by the assessee pertain to the Assessment Year 2017-18 and are directed against the separate orders dated 20.06.2024 and 12.06.2024 passed by Addl/JCIT(A)-
1, Jaipur/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act"] which in turn are arising out of the respective Assessment/Penalty orders.
2. Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 268 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed
Condonation application explaining the delay and relevant contents are reproduced below:

“1. That the appellant is engaged in the business of land and building development under the proprietorship concern "Ranjeet Developers and has filed the appeal against the order under section 143(3) of the Act dated 23.12.2019 and thereafter the said appeal was dismissed by the Assessee by :
Shri Suhas Bora and Shri Sampada Ingale
Revenue by :
Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Date of hearing
:
23.02.2026
Date of pronouncement
:
13.03.2026

ITA Nos.1368 and 1369/PUN/2025
Babasaheb Bhagawan Arkire

2
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National faceless Appeal Centre under section 250 of the Act on 12.06.2024. 2. That there is a delay of approximately 8 months in filing the appeal against the order U/Sec. 250 of the Act before the Hon'ble Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal, which is neither intentional nor deliberate but solely due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control.

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the appellant respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to:

a. Condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal; b. Admit and hear the appeal on merits; or alternatively, sent to CIT(A) and c. Pass such other or further orders as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.”

ITA Nos.1368 and 1369/PUN/2025
Babasaheb Bhagawan Arkire

3
4. After hearing both the sides and considering the averments made by the assessee stating the reasons which led to delay and also placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors.
(1987) 2 SCC 107) we find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeals within the time limit specified under the Act. We therefore condone the delay of 268 days in filing the appeals and admit the appeals for adjudication.

4
hearing. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by observing as under :
“5. Decision:
The facts of the case and the grounds raised by the appellant have been considered carefully. There is inordinate delay in the filing of appeal for which no sufficient reason is given by the appellant. The appellant has stated that he could not file the appeal as he was not in a mental condition to focus on these issues due to Covid. Here, it may be seen that the assessment order in the case of the appellant was passed on 23.12.2019 whereas, the Covid Pandemic and lockdown was enforced from mid-March 2020. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also extended the due dates for filing of appeal starting form 15th March 2020 and it is noted that the appellants case does not fall within the said time period.
The appellant has not given any sufficient reason to justify the delay in filing appeal. From the factual position which emerges it appears that a conscious and considered decision was taken by the assessee at the relevant point of time for not filing of appeal against the impugned order.
It is well-settled law that a distinction must be made between the cases where there is sufficient reason and where the appellant has not been able to justify the delay. The delay in the instant case clearly demonstrates that this appeal was not prosecuted with due care.
In view of the above detailed discussion, it is held that the appellant has no"sufficient cause" in terms of section 249(3) of the Act, for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period. It is well-settled law that an appellant is not entitled to the condonation as a matter of right.
For an appellant to succeed, the existence of sufficient cause is sine qua non and a condition precedent. It is manifestly evident that this ingredient is woefully lacking in this belated appeal filed by the appellant. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal by the appellant, is not considered as sufficient cause and delay is therefore, not condoned.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without any discussion on merits or on any other aspect
Considering the above discussion and facts, the appeal filed is not in conformity with the provisions of Sec 249(2) of the Act, and there is no sufficient cause for condonation of the delay in filing of the appeal, the present appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.
6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”

5
adopting a rational and pragmatic approach while adjudicating the condonation of delay.
9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. On perusal of the impugned order, it would be evident that the assessment order in the instant case has been passed on 23.12.2019 and the assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 27.01.2022. During the period from March, 2020 till
May 2022, entire nation has witnessed covid-19 pandemic issue and there were restrictions on movement of general public and considering the difficulties faced by the litigants, the period of almost two years have been excluded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation In re (2022)
441 ITR 722 (SC). The minor delay if any after exclusion of covid-
19 pandemic outbreak period would be hardly a month and the ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay. Adopting a justice oriented approach, the delay before ld.CIT(A) is hereby condoned.
10. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the ld. ld.CIT(A) for the year under consideration, it is evident that there was no participation from the side of assessee and ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine without discussing on merits of the case as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. The settled position of law mandates the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC to dispose of the appeal by adjudicating the issues raised in appeal on merits. In this regard, reference is being made to a decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High
Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A) NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order.

ITA Nos.1368 and 1369/PUN/2025
Babasaheb Bhagawan Arkire

6
11. Considering the totality of the case and in the larger interest of justice, I am of the considered opinion that the issues on merit deserves to be remitted back to the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo adjudication. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the issue, the issues on merits are being remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of the CIT(A)/NFAC is set aside and Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA Nos.1368 and 1369/PUN/2025
Babasaheb Bhagawan Arkire

7
13. A perusal of above finding also indicates that ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on merits as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. However, since the issues raised in the quantum addition are remitted back, the appeal relating to penalty levied u/s.270A raised in ITA No.1369/PUN/2025 being consequential is also remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A). Impugned order is set aside and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
14. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 13th day of March, 2026. (VINAY BHAMORE)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 13th March, 2026. Satish

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to :

////