Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A) against assessment and penalty orders. The CIT(A) dismissed all appeals as being barred by limitation without adjudicating on the merits.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) after noting it was not intentional and due to the fault of the tax consultant. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) should be condoned, and if so, whether the appeals should be restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 144B, 271(1)(c), 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
I.T.A.Nos. 1856, 1858 to 1862/PUN/2025 (Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2013-14 & 2015-16) Surendra Sumatilal ITO, Ward-1(1), Sancheti, M/s. Vardhaman Aurangabad Trading Company, Narket Commettee, Vaijapur, Aurangabad-423701 vs. Maharashtra PAN : AVFPS 2231 P (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Shubham Rathi (virtual) For Revenue : Shri Ganesh B Budruk, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.12.2025 ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM , 1859 & 1861/PUN/2025 at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated 14/07/2025, 21/06/2025 & 24/06/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of assessment orders passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 24/05/2023, 30/03/2022 & 12/05/2023 for 2 ITA.Nos.1856, 1858-1862PUN./2025 (Surendra Sumatilal Sancheti) Assessment Years (AY) 2014-15, 2013-14 & 2015-16 respectively.
, 1862 & 1860/PUN/2025 at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated, 21/06/2025, 24/06/2025 & 21/06/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of penalty orders passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 20/09/2023, 15/09/2022 & 14/09/2023 for Assessment Years (AY) 2014-15, 2013-14 & 2015-16 respectively.
At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee stated that in the impugned orders, Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeals being barred by limitation. Referring to the affidavit of the Tax Consultant/Accountant, he submitted that delay is not intentional and the authorized representative failed to make compliance before the Ld.CIT(A). He, thus, prayed that the issues raised in the instant appeals may please be restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and stated that assessee has stated different reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) and now before this Tribunal.
3 ITA.Nos.1856, 1858-1862PUN./2025 (Surendra Sumatilal Sancheti) 4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that assessee is an individual and the instant three appeals for A.Ys. 2013-14 to 2015-16 are against the quantum addition and remaining three are against penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Undisputedly, Ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of the cases and dismissed all the six appeals of the assessee being barred by limitation. Reasons for delay (similarly filed before Ld.CIT(A) and before us) are commonly on account of non-compliance by the Tax Consultant-Mr.Rajesh Bansilal Chhabada, who was approached by the assessee to look after the tax and appellate work. Affidavit of the Tax Consultant is placed on record, where he has admitted that due to less exposure to deal with the appellate procedure, he could not appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and delay was purely on his part. Considering the same and also observing that delay on the part of the assessee is not intentional and therefore, adopting a justice oriented approach and also taking guidance from the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107] and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), we condone the delay in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A).
So far as merits of the cases are concerned, since the same has not been dealt with by the Ld.CIT(A), we restore all
4 ITA.Nos.1856, 1858-1862PUN./2025 (Surendra Sumatilal Sancheti) the issues raised in the instant six appeals to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and to pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then decide the issues in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee in & 1858 to 1862/PUN/2025 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17.12.2025.