VAIDEHI SHASHANK KARADE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-5 PANVEL, PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2100/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 October 2025AY 2015-16Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2100/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vaidehi Shashank Karande, 10, Pratiksha, Shri Ram Nagar, New Chetan Ghanda, Jawala Colony, Aurangabad - 431 005 Maharashtra PAN : DETPK7189J Appellant Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-5, Panvel Respondent Appellant by : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Respondent by : Shri Bharat Andhale Date of hearing : 06.10.2025 Date of pronouncement : 27.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. 1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 268 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the assessee's contention that notice was not properly served and the period of delay was not intentional. However, since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the substantive issues, the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, did not file a return of income for AY 2015-16. A re-assessment proceeding was initiated u/s 148 and later concluded u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 as a best judgment assessment due to non-compliance, resulting in an addition of Rs. 1,13,34,600/-. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 268 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay of 268 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned? Whether the CIT(A) erred in not dealing with the substantive issues raised in the appeal?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. Phadke
For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Hearing: 06.10.2025Pronounced: 27.10.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 is against the order dated 18.07.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 emanating from Assessment Order dated 25.01.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act.

2.

Though the assessee has raised as many as 10 Grounds of appeal but one of the grievance is that ld.CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 268 days and dismissed the appeal in limine being barred by limitation. He submitted that the assessment order has been passed exparte u/s.144 of the Act and no notice was served on the assessee on the e- mail registered on the ITBA portal. Even the assessment order also was not served on the portal also and shown with e-mail id as blank which indicates that no notice has been issued on the income-tax portal. Assessee came to know about the passing of the assessment order only on receiving the demand notice dated 23.10.2024. Even the physical address mentioned in the assessment order also is vague. These reasons gave rise to the delay of 268 days in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A). He submitted that since the assessee had reasonable cause for delay in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A) the same deserves to be condoned in light of the settled judicial precedents and the issues raised in the instant appeal deserves to be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.

3. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and did not file the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16. Based on the information about sale of immovable property, ld. Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 of the Act followed by carrying out of the re-assessment proceedings. However, due to non compliance by the assessee ld. AO concluded the re-assessment proceedings u/s.147 r.w.s.144 of the Act and passed the best judgment assessment making addition of Rs.1,13,34,600/-. Assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 18.11.2024 and there was delay of 268 days. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay.

5.

On perusal of Form No.35 and other details placed by the assessee in the paper book, we find that the assessee was not served with valid notice of hearing as well as passing of the assessment order on the registered e-mail id. Assessee came to know about the passing of the assessment order only after receiving the demand notice dated 24.10.2024. We notice that in this era of serving of notice through e-mail id and the information available on the income-tax portal in many cases assessees are not well versed with this new technical advancement and sometimes e-mails received from the income-tax departments goes unnoticed. In the instant case, assessee has stated that in place of e-mail mentioned on the income tax portal for serving the notice/assessment order the column is blank and the e-mail id registered on the income tax portal of the assessee is not mentioned in the communication of sending the assessment order. Considering all these aspects and also observing that the delay in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A) is not intentional and assessee would not have gained by delaying the filing. 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 268 days in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A). However, since ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with the issues raised in Form No.35, we hereby remit back all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication to be carried out after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Impugned order is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced on this 27th day of October, 2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →