PRASANNA SHRIKANT PATANKAR,SATARA vs. ITO WD NO - 04, SATARA

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard and thus violating the principles of "audi alteram partem.

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has passed the order u/s 250 without application of mind and without observing the principles of natural justice.

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the submissions made and the documentary evidences submitted in respect of additions made by the Ld. AO.

That, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in passing the appellate order dismissing the appellant's appeal on account of delay in filing the appeal and without going either into the merits of the case or discussing the various grounds of appeal and statement of facts filed by the appellant.

That, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in passing the appellate order dismissing the appellant's appeal without going into the merits of the case and simply rejecting the appeal on ground of being filed beyond prescribed time limit.

That, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has mi irected himself in dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant without appreciating the bonafide reasons for the delay and judgments passed by various courts in regard to the condonation of delay in filing the said appeal.

That, having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred in not appreciating the bonafide reasons submitted by the appellant during the appellate proceedings, which prevented the appellant in filing the said appeal within the prescribed time.

That, the appellant may kindly be allowed to add, alter or modify any other points to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing.

That, the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.

Any other order in the interest of justice may kindly be passed.”

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessee had not filed Return of Income u/s.139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2015-16. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148A dated 20.03.2022 as mentioned by Assessee in the submission which has been reproduced by ld.CIT(A). Order u/s.148A(d) was passed on 30.03.2022 and notice u/s.148 was issued on 30.03.2022. Assessee could not file any details during the assessment proceedings, hence, assessment was completed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, assessing the total income at Rs.1,15,32,173/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 07.12.2024 as evident from Form No.35. 3. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay of 604 days.

During the hearing before us, ld.AR appeared filed paper book. Doctor Prasanna Shrikant Patankar himself appeared. Doctor filed copy of the medical degrees issued by universities to prove that he is a Neuro Surgeon. Assessee Doctor submitted that his earlier Tax Consultant had provided Email Id pkadam272@gmail.com which is not assessee’s email. It was pleaded that Tax Consultant has not provided notices and order to Assessee. He also submitted that Notices sent by post by Assessing Officer were received by his Mother who is illiterate and senior citizen. Doctor further submitted that as a result of this, he was not aware about the Assessment Order. Assessee further submitted that during the period, he has been travelling and Form No.26 shows income earned from ITA No.1693/PUN/2025 [A]

Ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) and the assessee submitted that there was sufficient cause for delay and hence, ld.CIT(A) may be directed to condone the delay. 6. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue has vehemently opposed the arguments made by the ld.AR and Assessee.

It is a fact that Assessee is a Neuro Surgeon and has received income from various hospitals including salary income.

We have studied the Affidavit filed before us.

1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others Civil Appeal Nos.8183-8184 of 2013 vide order dated 13/09/2013 has laid down following principles for deciding Condonation Application:

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT [2017] 398 ITR 250 (Bombay) while condoning the delay of 2984 days observed as under : Quote, “21. We find from paragraph 13 of the order, but for this relevant factors and tests, everything else has been brought into the adjudication by the Tribunal. The Tribunal though aware of these principles but possibly carried away by the fact that the delay of 2984 days is incapable of condonation. That is not how a matter of this nature should be approached. In the process the Tribunal went about blaming the assessee and the professionals and equally the Department. To our mind, therefore, the Tribunal's order does not meet the requirement set out in law. The Tribunal has completely mi irected itself and has taken into account factors, tests and considerations which have no bearing or nexus with the issue at hand. The Tribunal, therefore, has erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay. The explanation placed on affidavit was not contested nor we find that from such explanation can we arrive at the conclusion that the assessee was at fault, he intentionally and deliberately delayed the ITA No.1693/PUN/2025 [A]

In the light of the above discussion, we allow both the appeals. We condone the delay of 2984 days in filing the appeals but on the condition of payment of costs, quantified totally at Rs.50,000/-. Meaning thereby, Rs.25,000/- plus Rs.25,000/- in both appeals. The costs to be paid in one set to the respondents within a period of eight weeks from today. On proof of payment of costs, the Tribunal shall restore the appeals of the assessee to its file for adjudication and disposal on merits. We clarify that all contentions as far as merits of the claim are kept open. We have not expressed any opinion on the same.” Unquote.(emphasis supplied)

1 Thus, in the above referred case, Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court has condoned the delay of 2984 days. The Hon’ble High Court has categorically observed that there was no intentional and deliberate delay and hence, Hon’ble High Court condoned the delay.

In the case of Dr.Prasanna Shrikant Patankar, on perusal of the Affidavit and pleadings, we are of the considered opinion that there was sufficient cause for delay.

In this case, the important fact which has been submitted by Assessee before the ld.CIT(A) which has been reproduced by ld.CIT(A) in paragraph 4 of the order that order u/s.148A(d) was passed on 30.03.2022 and notice u/s.148 was issued on 30.03.2022. ITA No.1693/PUN/2025 [A]

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Steel and Power Ltd., vs. CBDT 476 ITR 369 (SC) vide order dated 02.04.2025 has held as under : Quote“5. As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, allnotices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion duringthe period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain ProvisionsAct, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021.”Unquote.

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Cherian Nallathu Abraham Annamma vs. ITO [2025] 179 taxmann.com 433 (Bombay) has held as under : Quote, “9. Similarly, even in the matter of Nehal Ashit Shah (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, relying uponparagraphs 19 (e) and (f) of the decision in case of Rajeev Bansal (supra), dismissed the SLP filed by theRevenue. Paragraph 5 of the said order is reproduced hereunder:- "5. In this regard, reference could also be made to paragraph 19(e) and (f) in the case of Union of India v.Rajeev Bansal, Civil Appeal No. 8629 of 2024 on 03.10.2024 (2024 SCC ONLINE 754) under which the learned Additional Solicitor General for India has made a concession insofar as the assessment year 2015-16 is concerned."

In light of the above discussion, we find merit in the submissions as canvassed by the Petitioner. The Revenue has categorically made a concession that for A.Y.2015-16 they would drop all notices issued under Section 148 after 1st April 2021. Once this is the position, it is appropriate that the notice under Section 148dated 5th April 2022, and the consequential assessment order, notice of demand, penalty notices/orders as well as the recovery notices be quashed and set aside. It is accordingly so ordered” Unquote.

1 Thus, Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court (supra) has noted the concession made by Revenue that all the notices issued after 1/4/2021 for AY 2015-16 would be dropped. Accordingly, Hon’ble juri ictional High Court quashed the notice dated 5/4/2022 in that case for AY 2015-16. 13.2 However, in the case of the assessee Dr.Prasanna Patankar, neither the Ld.AR nor the Ld.DR for the Revenue has placed before us the copies of Notices issued u/s 148A, 148 and order u/s 148A(d).

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28 November, 2025. VINAY BHAMORE

गधर्ाफ़धइल / Guard File. आदेशधिपसधर / BY ORDER,