SIDHHIVINAYAK GRAMIN SAHKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
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.
What were the 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.
What were the 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.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji3,926 citing167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PUNE
Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD
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.
I observe that the assessee is a Society and assessment for A.Y. 2017-18 has been framed ex-parte u/s 144 of the Act and addition for unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act at Rs. 3,00,000/- and also estimated income @ 8% of the gross receipts calculated at Rs. 9,93,849/-. Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) assessed the income at Rs. 12,93,850/-. I further observe that in the appellate proceedings before 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 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be given to the assessee. 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.
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 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026