JAYVANTI JANARDAN BHANUSKAR,RAIGAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-PANVEL, PANVEL
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE
BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT
AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.890/PUN/2025
धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14
Jayvanti Janardan Bhanuskar,
At Koproli Post, Koproli, Tal. Pen,
Raigad, Maharashtra-402107
PAN : AXSPB9235B
Vs.
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Panvel
अपीलार्थी / Appellant
प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent
Assessee by :
Shri Akash Kumar
Department by :
Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Date of hearing :
17-07-2025
Date of Pronouncement :
12-08-2025
आदेश / ORDER
PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM :
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated
31.01.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi
[“CIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2013-14. 2. There is a delay of 363 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay along with a sworn affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. On perusal of the same, we are satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal is not intentional or deliberate but has occurred for the reasons mentioned in the affidavit. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the delay is attributable to the sufficient cause.
2.1
We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land
Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As 2
ITA No.890/PUN/2025, AY 2013-14
against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
2 We find recently the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under: “14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.”
3 Considering the totality of facts and in the circumstances of the case and respectfully following the above decision(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we hereby condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the same for adjudication.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in framing an ex-parte order. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have framed an ex parte order. 2. The CIT(A) erred in not deciding the following grounds of appeal on merits- "1. The Learned Assessing Officer referred as Ld. AO has wrongly treated the entire government value of immovable property registered on 29/01/2013 with Sub-