WESTERN MAHARASHTRA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,SHIVAJINAGAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), noting the reasons provided by the assessee and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 112 days. The assessee is a Maharashtra Govt. Company that filed its return of income for AY 2018-19, which was processed u/s.143(1) with certain disallowances. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 466 days.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned on the grounds of 'reasonable cause' and the prevailing pandemic situation. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide 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.
- Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.451 citing2 SCC 107 · 1987 · SC
- Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh267 citing2025 INSC 382 · 2025 · SC
- 441 ITR 722162 citing441 ITR 722 · 2022 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
PER DR. MANISH BOARD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 12.02.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of Intimation Order dated 15.09.2019 passed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Registry has informed that that the instant appeal is barred by limitation as the assessee has filed this appeal with a delay of 112 days. Assessee has submitted an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. On perusing the averments made in the affidavit, we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We therefore taking guidance from the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 112 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Maharashtra Govt. Company formed with the object of development of Industries in the State of Maharashtra. It filed the return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 19.09.2018 declaring income of Rs.1,89,12,980/-. Return processed u/s.143(1) of the Act making following disallowance of Rs.9,25,71,360/- on account of receipt of Dividend from company and Rs.55,09,140/- on account of delayed payment of Provident Fund. Assessee filed Rectification application u/s.154 of the Act which was rejected on 28.10.2019.
Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but with a delay of 466 days. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We note that in the instant case ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay on the ground that the delay for the period prior to covid-19 as well as post covid-19 was not explained. However, it is an admitted fact that Intimation order u/s.143(1) was passed on 15.09.2019 and subsequently covid-19 pandemic outbreak took place across the country. Assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 23.03.2023 and most of the period gets covered considering the difficulties faced by the litigants by virtue of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation In re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC). Another aspect putforth by the assessee for explaining the delay is that the Managing Director at the relevant point of time from 01.11.2020 to 22.04.2025 was holding Additional Charge apart from regular charge of Joint Director of Industries, Govt. of Maharashtra and there is no decision making authority exclusively for the assessee company. There may be other extraneous reasons beyond the control of the assessee for not filing the appeal in time. Considering that there is ‘sufficient cause’ on the part of assessee for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time, ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay and adjudicated the appeal on merits. We therefore taking cognizance of the facts and circumstances and adopting justice oriented approach condone the delay before ld.CIT(A) and admit the appeal for adjudication.
Since ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of the case, we are of the considered opinion that assessee deserves one more opportunity. In view therefore, without dwelling into merits of the case, we remit back all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo 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 reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 27th day of November, 2025.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Dastagir Hamid Mujawar, Sangli vs ITO Ward-2, SangaliPune13 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a justice-oriented approach and reliance on Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.
- Shreya Dey Sarkar, Pune, Maharashtra vs I.T.O., Ward - 2(4), Raiganj, West DinajpurKolkata29 Dec 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), recognizing the clerical and bonafide nature of the error. It held that the assessee should not be penalized for mistakes made by their consultant a...
- Surendra Sumatilal Sancheti, Aurnagabad vs ITO WD- 1(1), AurnagabadPune17 Dec 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) on the grounds that the delay was not intentional and adopting a justice-oriented approach. The Tribunal restored the issues to the CIT(A) for neces...
- Vishnu Ganpat Gaikwad, Raigad vs ITO, Ward-1, PanvelPune27 Nov 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 258 days in filing the appeal before it, finding that the delay was not intentional and caused by a genuine clerical mistake. The appeal was admitted for adjudication.
- Kailas Kantilal Kothari, Nashik vs ADIT, CPC, BangalorePune26 Nov 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging sufficient cause. The legal issue raised by the assessee was dismissed as not pressed. For the merits of the case, the Tribunal observed that the rental...
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sri Mohanraj vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- Rabindranath Behera vs. The Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Dinesh Dash vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ishwar Chandra Barik, Keonjhar vs. Commissioner(Appeal), GST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Surveillance System, Sambalpur vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST Odisha , CT And GST Commissionerate , Cuttack OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026