BALKRISHNA DNYANOBA KHANDVE,PUNE vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

Registry has informed that there is delay of 59 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the 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 note that the delay is not intentional and assessee would not have gained from Appellant by : Shri Kishor B Phadke Respondent by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 22.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 29.10.2025 Balkrishna Dnyanoba Khandve

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessee is an individual and proprietor of firm M/s. Samarth Stone Quarry and Satish Transport. Assessee is also a partner in M/s. Deepali Stone Crusher. Income of Rs.68,32,530/- declared in the return filed for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.09.2015. Survey u/s.133A of the Act carried out in the case of M/s. Deepali Stone Crusher, B.D. Khandve group and others. Certain incriminating documents were found and ld. AO believed that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Statutory notices u/s.148, 143(2) and 142(1) were served upon the assessee and the assessee in response to show cause notice dated 25.01.2022 furnished his submissions on 24.02.2022. After considering the submissions of the assessee, ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment proceedings assessing the total income at Rs.1,33,43,530/- as against returned income at Rs.68,32,530/- u/s.147 of the Act making the following four additions :

Disallowance u/s.40a(ia) of the Act – Rs.40,000/- 2. Disallowance u/s.40A(3) of the Act – Rs.76,000/- 3. Disallowance u/s.37 of the Act – Rs.5,73,000/- Balkrishna Dnyanoba Khandve

Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but with a delay of 22 days. Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine without dealing with merits of the case by not condoning the delay. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal assailing the impugned order.

In the affidavit filed for delay, we find that assessee has stated that assessee is unaware of the latest information technology advancements and he was hospitalized at the relevant point of time. He was totally dependent upon the staff and the email id could not be accessed and therefore there was delay in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A). Therefore, it is manifest that there is non-compliance before ld.CIT(A) for the aforementioned reasons. It is also a fact that ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of the case as he did not condone the delay before him.

Considering all these aspects, we find that assessee has not gained by delaying the filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A) and therefore in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties we deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee to go before ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the case, the issues raised in the instant appeal are remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A). Needless to mention that in the set aside proceedings ld CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside Balkrishna Dnyanoba Khandve

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

अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune.

गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,