CHETAN ARVIND ALAI,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 233/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 August 2025AY 2011-12Bench: DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS.ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)4 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 28 days in filing the appeal, acknowledging the reasonable cause shown by the assessee. It remitted the two unaddressed grounds concerning commission income and short-term capital gain back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2011-12 was filed against an NFAC order, which arose from an assessment making additions to the returned income. The appeal to the Tribunal was delayed by 28 days. The Ld. CIT(A) had adjudicated only one of the three grounds of appeal, failing to address additions related to commission income (Rs. 2,68,000/-) and short-term capital gain (Rs. 20,83,334/-).

What were the issues?

The key issues were the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and the failure of the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate all grounds of appeal, specifically those pertaining to commission income and short-term capital gain.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 263,Section 144B

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 “A”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & MS.ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Prathik Sandbhor
For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Hearing: 21.07.2025Pronounced: 14.08.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12 is directed against the order dated 28.10.2024 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 29.03.2022 passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 263 r.w.s144B of the Act.

2.

At the outset, we find that the appeal before the Tribunal is time barred by 28 days. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeal. After hearing both the sides and considering the averments made in the affidavit, we are satisfied that assessee was prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated time for ‘reasonable cause’. We therefore condone the delay of 28 days in Chetan Arvind Alai filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme 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).

3. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with ground No.2 and 3 raised relating to addition for commission received at 2,68,000/- and addition for short term capital gain at Rs.20,83,334/-. It is therefore prayed that direction may be given to the ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate the above two grounds and decide as per law. Ld. Departmental Representative raised no objection if the matter is restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of above two grounds.

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and assessment for A.Y. 2011-12 framed on 29.03.2022 and against the returned income at Rs.11,23,800/- certain additions were made and income assessed at Rs.38,80,093/-. Aggrieved with the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) and on the ITBA portal showing attachment to Form No.35 indicates that following three grounds of appeal were raised :

“1. Indirect expenses incidental to the business were claimed in the Profit & Loss Account which mainly includes administrative expenses. All the expenses are disallowed by the respected A.O.

2. Commission received shown at the credit side of Profit and Loss Account has now been again added back to the returned income.

3.

The property sold by the assessee wherein the assessee's share was only 1/6th, the respected officer had made an addition of Full value of consideration as a capital gain without considering acquisition value of the property.”

Chetan Arvind Alai 5. However, in the Form No.35 under the column in which grounds of appeal are mentioned, due to lack of space only Ground No.1 relating to disallowance of expenses from Business and Profession at Rs.4,04,959/- was appearing. Ld.CIT(A) has dealt with this ground itself and remaining two grounds remained to be adjudicated.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that above ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the assessee in Form No.3 relating to addition made for commission received at Rs.2,68,000/- and addition for short term capital gain at Rs.20,83,334/- are remitted to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Assessee is at liberty to adduce the requisite evidence/submissions to substantiate the case. Impugned order is set aside and the 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 August, 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 →