RAJENDRA SUBHASH NAGARGOJE,SANGLI vs. ITO, WARD-1, SANGLI, SANGLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2520/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 December 2025AY 2016-17Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 113 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the unfortunate demise of the assessee's brother, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, did not file a return of income for AY 2016-17. Based on information of large transactions, a notice u/s 148 was issued, and a return was filed declaring income. The AO passed a best judgement assessment adding Rs. 74,00,000/- for unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 113 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine due to delay, and if the delay should be condoned on merits. Whether the issues raised in appeal should be restored to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, B BENCH,

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare
For Respondent: Shri Manoj

आदीश /ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 03.09.2025 which is arising out of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144/144B of the Act dated 24.01.2024.

2.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in dismissing the appeal by not condoning the delay without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case in confirming addition of Rs. 74 lakhs as un-explained money u/s 69A without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case in not appreciating that the Agricultural land is purchased jointly and the assessee's share is 50% i.e. 37 lakhs only.

4.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in not appreciating that the sources of the purchase of Land the loans from the financial institution 24 Lakhs and remaining amount Rs. 13 lakhs out of Agri income.

5. Appellant craves to leave add new ground or amend, alter, change, modify any or all the above ground of Appeal.

3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for setting aside the issues raised on merits in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) who has dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine on account of delay of 113 days in filing of the appeal.

4. On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of Ld. CIT(A).

5.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The assessee is an individual and did not file return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. Based on the information above large transactions totaling to Rs. 83,47,490/- made by the assessee during financial year 2015-16. Assessee was served valid statutory notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response to which assessee filed the return declaring income of Rs. 3,91,040/- Subsequently Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act but assessee failed to make proper

6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order dated 24.01.2024. However the appeal was delayed by 113 days. Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. We on going through the reasons for delay mentioned by the assessee in Form No. 35 filed before Ld. CIT(A) observe that the delay was on account of major illness of assessee’s Brother who unfortunately expired on 22.11.2023. It is quite evident that in such a situation the family life undergoes a very sad phase. Considering the reasonable cause, in the larger interest of justice and also placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others(1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) (Supreme Court) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay of 113 days before Ld. CIT(A).

7. So far as merits of the case are considered, since Ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of the case, we on considering the prayer made by Ld. Counsel for the assessee deem it appropriate to restore the issues raised in the instant appeal on merits back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and for passing a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for

8.

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

Order pronounced on this 10th day of December, 2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →