CHADRALOP SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,AURANGABAD vs. EXEMPTION WARD, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 778/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 November 2025AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 144 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT, citing a justice-oriented approach and relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal within time by a reasonable and sufficient cause, and the delay was not intentional. The Tribunal also held that the assessee deserved one more opportunity to go before the CIT(A) for adjudication of the issues on merits, considering that the assessee is dependent on a consultant and any delay at the consultant's end should not prejudice the assessee's right. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Chadralop Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, filed an appeal before the ITAT Pune against an order of the CIT(A) dated 30/09/2025 for Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeal before the ITAT was filed with a delay of 144 days. The assessee is a trust whose case was reopened due to information about cash deposits and receipt of interest and commission income. The assessee had not filed a regular return of income under section 139(1). Despite receiving notices under sections 148 and 142(1), the assessee did not appear before the Assessing Officer (AO), leading to a best judgment assessment with additions of Rs. 74,96,212/-. The assessee's subsequent appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay in filing, which the CIT(A) did not condone.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 144 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, turning on the principles of justice and the precedents of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. 2. Whether the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, considering the circumstances leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT was due to dependence on a professional who took extra time to analyze the case and collate data. The assessee also contended that any inadvertent mistake or delay by the consultant should not disentitle the assessee from its right to appeal and have the issues adjudicated on merits. The assessee prayed for one more opportunity to appear before the CIT(A). Revenue's Contentions: The Departmental Representative supported the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 250,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VIJAY BHAMORE

I.T.A.No.778/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Chadralop Shikshan CIT (Exemption), Aurangabad prasarak Mandal, Gut No. 52, Tuljapar Shiwar, Harssol Sawangi, vs. Jalgaon Road, Sawangi, Aurangabad. PAN : AABTC 0431 A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nikhil S Pathak, AR For Revenue : Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR Date of Hearing : 12.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated 30/09/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16.

2.

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 144 days in filing of the present appeal. An application for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. One of the 2 ITA.No.778/PUN./2025 (Chadralop Shikshan Prasarak Mandal) reasons stated by the assessee is that for filing of appeal, the assessee is dependent on the professional, who took extra time for analyzing the case and examining the financial records and collate necessary data to prepare a comprehensive appeal. We find that the assessee has been prevented from a reasonable and sufficient cause and the delay is not an intentional. Taking a justice oriented approach and also placing reliance on the judgment 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 hereby condone the delay of 144 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.

3.

At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that assessee has not responded to the notices of hearing issued by the AO as well as Ld.CIT(A), resulting into dismissal of assessee’s appeal. The only prayer made is to provide one more opportunity to go before the Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication of all the issues raised in the present appeal.

4.

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

5.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the records placed before us.

3 ITA.No.778/PUN./2025 (Chadralop Shikshan Prasarak Mandal) 6. We observe that the assessee is a trust and case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2015-16 has been reopened on account of information about cash deposit and receipt of interest and commission income. Admittedly, regular return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act has not been filed by the assessee. In spite of assessee being served valid statutory notices u/s. 148 & 142(1) of the Act and other show-cause notices, the assessee did not appear nor filed any submissions before the AO, resultantly, best judgment assessment framed by the AO making additions to the tune of Rs. 74,96,212/-.

7.

Being aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on 09/06/2023 which was barred by limitation. Though, the assessee mentioned the reason that the consultant, who was appointed by the assessee, had not filed the appeal within the time limit, but Ld.CIT(A) did not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine.

8.

As observed above, we note that the assessee is dependent on the consultant for looking after the appeal works and any inadvertent mistake or delay at the end of the consultant should not disentitle the assessee’s right of filing the appeal as well as adjudication of the issues on merits. We therefore, considering the fact that delay in filing before the Ld.CIT(A) is not intentional and the assessee would not have gained from delaying the appeal, hereby condone the delay in 4 ITA.No.778/PUN./2025 (Chadralop Shikshan Prasarak Mandal) filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). However, in the larger interest of justice, the assessee deserves one more opportunity to go before the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of the issues on merits.

9.

We, therefore, remit back the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. 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 as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournments unless required for reasonable cause. Grounds of appeal

raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

10. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 14.11.2025.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →