KHALIL KASHIM DARWAJKAR,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 288 days, considering the reasonable cause explained by the assessee and citing judgments of the Apex Court. The Tribunal remitted the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, affording the assessee another opportunity to present its case.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal pertaining to AY 2010-11 against an order of the NFAC, which arose from an assessment order passed under Section 144 r.w.s.147 of the Act. There was a delay of 288 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned? Whether the issue on merits should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication due to the assessee's failure to appear before lower authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors.451 citing2 SCC 107 · 1987 · SC
- Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh267 citing2025 INSC 382 · 2025 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11 is directed against the order dated 18.07.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 11.12.2017 passed u/s.144 r.w.s147 of the Act.
Registry has informed that there is delay of 288 days in preferring the instant appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeal.
After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the affidavit, we are satisfied that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeal within the stipulated Khalil Kashim Darwajkar time. We note that the assessee has not gained from filing the appeal with a delay. We therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court 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 288 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities and therefore the issue on merits may be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A).
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Assessee is an individual and assessment for A.Y. 2010-11 has been framed as best judgment u/s.444 r.w.s.147 of the Act on 11.12.2017. Assessee has filed the regular return of income. Addition has been made at Rs.20,15,950/- for the explained deposits in the State Bank of India, Ajara, District Kolhapur. Assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) but failed to appear. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that few dates of hearing issued during Covid-19 pandemic outbreak prevailed across the country. Considering the practical difficulties faced by the assessee and also in the larger interest of justice along with the prayed made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, we are inclined to afford one more opportunity to substantiate its case. We therefore remit the issue raised on merit to the file Khalil Kashim Darwajkar of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 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. Impugned order is hereby set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 16th day of September, 2025.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Imrankhan Ismail Pathan, Dhule vs ITO Ward 1, DhulePune13 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal noted that the assessee neither participated in the proceedings before the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A), resulting in ex-parte orders. However, considering the totality of facts and the assessee's prayer...
- Kedgaon Gramin Bigarsheti Sahkari… vs Assessment Unit Income Tax Department…Pune13 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 391 days, relying on Apex Court judgments, finding the delay not intentional. The Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing a reas...
- Shree Aishwarya Laxmi Mahila Nagari… vs Income Tax Officer Ward 9(3), PunePune13 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 45 days, citing a justice-oriented approach and reliance on Supreme Court judgments. The appeal was remitted to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication to provide the assessee with a reason...
- Dastagir Hamid Mujawar, Sangli vs ITO Ward-2, SangaliPune13 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a justice-oriented approach and reliance on Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.
- Shreya Dey Sarkar, Pune, Maharashtra vs I.T.O., Ward - 2(4), Raiganj, West DinajpurKolkata29 Dec 2025Partly Allowed
Also relies on Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and 1 other authority
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), recognizing the clerical and bonafide nature of the error. It held that the assessee should not be penalized for mistakes made by their consultant a...
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026