Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a Neurosurgeon, failed to file a Return of Income for AY 2015-16. A notice under Section 148A was issued, followed by a notice under Section 148. The assessment was completed under Section 147 r.w.s 144. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) after a delay of 604 days, citing travel and issues with his mother receiving notices.
Held
The Tribunal held that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay. Citing various judgments, including those from the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court, the Tribunal noted that the delay in filing was due to sufficient cause and not intentional. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condonable on the grounds of sufficient cause, considering the principles of substantial justice over procedural technicalities.
Sections Cited
139(1), 148A, 148, 147, 144, 144B, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
In this case, appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commisioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 29.05.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 14.03.2023. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
“1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld.CIT (A), NFAC in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant is arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to law and is opposed to the principles of natural justice, equity and fair play.
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.
4. 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.
6. 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.
7. That, the Ld. CIT (A), NFAC has misdirected 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.
8. 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. 2
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.
10. That, the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.
11. Any other order in the interest of justice may kindly be passed.” Findings & Analysis :
2. 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. 3 3.1 Assessee had filed an Affidavit before ld.CIT(A) for condonation of Delay part of which has been reproduced by ld.CIT(A) in the order. It has been claimed by the Assessee in the Affidavit that Assessee is a Neurosurgeon and has to travel frequently. The notices and the assessment order was received at his permanent residential address wherein, his old age mother resides. It has been submitted in the Affidavit that since his mother could not understand the notices, she had not informed the assessee.
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 4 consultancy. It is noted that Assessee had earned income from following hospitals : AVIVA MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL GLOBAL HOSPITAL AND RESEARCH CNETRE RAJAN NALIN MODI JIVDANI HOSPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED SEVENHILLS HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED 5. 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.
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.
8.1 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: 5
Quote, “ 15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ii) ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. iv) iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. 6 xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. ” Unquote. 8.2 Thus, the legal position discernible from the aforesaid decisions that the substantial justice is paramount consideration and pivotal.
9. 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 misdirected 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 7
matter and has no bona fide or reasonable explanation for the delay in filing the proceedings. The position is quite otherwise.
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)
9.1 Thus, in the above referred case, Hon’ble Jurisdictional 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 8 passed on 30.03.2022 and notice u/s.148 was issued on 30.03.2022.
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." 9
Lastly, this very Bench has on 6th October 2025, in the matter of Spicy Sangria (supra), allowed the petition filed by the Petitioner therein by noting that since, the notice under Section 148 was issued after 1stApril 2021, the same was required to be set aside in light of the concession made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra).
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.
13.1 Thus, Hon’ble Jurisdictional 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 jurisdictional 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 these facts and circumstances of the case, substantial justice is more important than procedural delay, therefore, we direct ld.CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. Ld.CIT(A) shall provide opportunity of hearing to the Assessee. Assessee shall file necessary documents before the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28 November, 2025.