VASANT KRISHNAJI SUPEKAR,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 5(4), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1899/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 October 2025AY 2018-19Bench: DR.MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing justice-oriented approach and the interest of justice, and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issues were remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to pass a speaking order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2018-19 was dismissed by the CIT(A) for being filed with a delay of approximately 4 months. The assessee attributed the delay to not receiving notices due to an old chartered accountant's email address being used and only becoming aware of the assessment order when a demand recovery letter was received. The assessee requested condonation of delay and a fresh adjudication on merits.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, and if so, whether the appeal should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 250,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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 & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Shastri and Shri Saurabh Patil
For Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar
Hearing: 17.09.2025Pronounced: 14.10.2025

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 is against the order dated 17.06.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 27.12.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act.

2.

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the learned assessing officer has erred in considering the instance of Sale of immovable property, which belongs to society of the assessee and not assessee, as Short-term capital gain of the assessee and CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned assessing officer has erred in taxing rental receipts of Rs.

Vasant Krishnaji Supekar 7,08,000/- as income of the assessee without allowing standard deduction and other due deductions, TDS available to assessee and CIT(A) has erred in confirming the same. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, alter OR amend any OR all grounds of appeal, before OR during the hearing of appeal.”

3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine on account of delay in filing the appeal. He further stated that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time. Therefore, he prayed that delay in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) may be condoned and remit all the issues raised on merit to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication.

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

5.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and the assessment for A.Y. 2018-19 has been framed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act on 27.12.2023 wherein certain additions totalling to Rs.1.73 crore have been made in the hands of assessee. Assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 06.06.2024 but with a delay by around 4 months. Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay. We observe that the assessee has filed the reasons giving rise to the said delay. It has been stated before ld.CIT(A) that the notices along with the order have been received on the email id of the old Chartered Accountant of the assessee and the assessee missed the notices as well as passing of the assessment order. Assessee came to know only when the demand recovery letter was received on 28.05.2024.

Vasant Krishnaji Supekar 6. Considering the fact that the assessee is dependent upon the Authorised Representative/Tax Consultant for the appeal and other Taxation works and any inadvertent mistake in complying the notices at the end of Tax Consultants should not be taken adversely in case there is delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee. Therefore, taking justice oriented approach and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it proper to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case before the authorities. We therefore set aside the impugned order and remit all the issues raised in the appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Ld. CIT(A) shall pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. 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. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

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

Order pronounced on this 14th 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 →