PRAVIN KUMAR BALWANT BIRHADE,PUNE vs. WARD 8(1), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 687/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 September 2025AY 2012-13Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 3134 days, holding that there was sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the issues to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertained to AY 2012-13 and was directed against an order passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising out of an assessment order passed u/s 144. The assessee had also raised a ground challenging the impugned order for not condoning a delay of 3134 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned? Whether the matter should be remitted to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

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 “SMC”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Pahlani
For Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari
Hearing: 18.08.2025Pronounced: 08.09.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 16.01.2025 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 19.03.2015 passed u/s.144 of the Act.

2.

From the perusal of grounds, we notice that apart from grounds of appeal raised on merits against various additions totalling to Rs.5,11,644/-, assessee has also raised a ground challenging the impugned order stating that in spite of reasonable cause ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 3134 days and dismissed the appeal in limine.

Pravin Kumar Balwant Birhade 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the written submissions placed at page 1 to 4 submitted that assessment order for A.Y 2012-13 framed on 19.03.2015 was not served upon the assessee and the Department had not contacted assessee for payment of outstanding demand till the first quarter of the year 2025. Immediately after receiving the information through telephonic communication from the Income Tax Department, assessee obtained copy of assessment order and filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 19.03.2025. Thereafter, assessee has also filed application on 10.06.2025 seeking acknowledgement of service of the assessment order and relevant documents so as to file the details before ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay. However, ld. CIT(A) has not given cognizance to the fact that assessee has received the assessment order at a later stage and has not condoned the delay. Prayer made to condone the said delay before ld.CIT(A) and to provide one more opportunity of going before the lower authorities by condoning the delay. Ld. DR supported the order of ld. CIT(A).

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Admittedly, against the assessment order for A.Y 2012-13 framed on 19.03.2015 assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 3134 days. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee taking us through paper book running into 34 pages has successfully demonstrated that sufficient and reasonable cause prevented the assessee from filing appeal in the prescribed time limit before CIT(A). We further observe that assessee would not have gained with the said delay and therefore taking support from the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Pravin Kumar Balwant Birhade 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) we condone the delay of 3134 days.

5.

Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for setting aside the matter to the file of lower authorities. We note that ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the merits of the case and further note that the assessment order has also been framed u/s.144 of the Act as Best Judgment Assessment. Under these given facts and circumstances and considering the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, we deem it proper to remit back the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to update 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 set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

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

Order pronounced on this 08th day of September, 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 →