SIDHHIVINAYAK GRAMIN SAHKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

PDF

ITA 1536/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 October 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Ld. CIT(A) assessee had not responded on various notices of hearing. However considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties, I deem it proper to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly all the issues raised in the instant appeal are restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication to be carried out in accordance with law as contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Act. Needless to 3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order, which arose from an ex-parte assessment for AY 2017-18 under Section 144, including additions under Section 69A and estimated income. The assessee failed to respond to notices during the CIT(A) proceedings, and there was a delay of 111 days in filing the current appeal before the ITAT.

Held

The Tribunal condoned the 111-day delay, noting it was due to the assessee's lack of awareness and non-response from their tax consultant. In the interest of justice, all issues were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication under Section 250(6), with directions to provide a proper opportunity of hearing and for the assessee to remain vigilant.

Key Issues

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned; whether the ex-parte assessment and additions were justified; whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity for hearing at the CIT(A) level.

Sections Cited

250, 144, 69A, 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
3,926 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE

Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD

For Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl

Hearing: 01.10.2025

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT Date of hearing : 01.10.2025 Date of : 14.10.2025 pronouncement आदेश/ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Kolhapur passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 23.12.2024 which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s 144 dated 09.12.2019.

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 111 days. After going through the application for condonation of delay and also considering the submissions of Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), I find that the delay has arised on account of lack of response of the appointed Tax Consultant and also the assessee society lacked awareness of faceless assessment/appellate proceedings. I note that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate and assessee would not have gained from delaying the appeal. Placing reliance on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others(1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) (Supreme Court) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382), I hereby condone the delay of 111 days and admit the appeal for adjudication.

When the case called for none appeared on behalf of the assessee. With the assistance of Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) and perusal of the impugned order I find that the assessee failed to respond to the four notices of hearing sent on e-mail Id mentioned in Form No. 35.