SHIVAJI SOPAN GOTE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1264/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 July 2025AY 2015-16Bench: DR.MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)1 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 382-day delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause and substantial justice. The issues raised in the appeal were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to present all required evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in real estate development, filed an appeal against an order related to AY 2015-16. The appeal was delayed by 382 days due to the assessee's genuine medical reasons, preventing timely attendance and submission of documents to lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to genuine medical reasons, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication to allow the assessee to submit evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69C,Section 250,Section 29

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 “B”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A Vaze
For Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastava
Hearing: 14.07.2025Pronounced: 22.07.2025

PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 is directed against the order dated 15.02.2024 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 21.12.2017 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act.

2.

Registry has informed that the appeal before this Tribunal is time barred by limitation by 382 days. Application for condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as follows :

“That the appellant is an individual engaged in the business of real estate development and supply of construction materials under the proprietary concern "Harihareshwar Developers."

That the assessment for the Assessment Year 2015-16 was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, wherein an addition of 55,51,875/- was made under section. 69C of the Act. The appellant filed an appeal before the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, the same was dismissed on the ground of delay and non-attendance for hearing, without admission on merits.. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was received by the appellant on 15/02/2024, and the present appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal has been filed thereafter. There is a delay of 382 days in filing the appeal, for which the appellant seeks condonation. The delay in filing the appeal occurred due to genuine medical reasons. The appellant was suffering from health issues which required regular treatment and medical attention during the relevant period. Owing to his health condition, he was unable to attend to professional and legal matters in a timely manner. The delay was neither intentional nor due to negligence, but purely due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control. The appellant is now in a stable condition and has taken immediate steps to pursue the matter diligently, including obtaining legal assistance. The appellant also humbly submits that he has gathered relevant documentation substantiate his case, including evidence that was not available during the proceedings before the CIT(A), and will be filing a petition under Rule 29 for admission of additional evidence. It is a settled principle of law that substantial justice should not be denied merely on technical grounds, and that procedural delays can be condoned when justified by sufficient cause. PRAYER: In view of the foregoing, the appellant most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to: • Condone the delay in filing the present appeal, • Admit the appeal for hearing on merits; • Allow the submission of additional evidence at the time of hearing. • Allow the submission of evidence regarding delay in filing of an Appeal before the Honourable -ITAT, at the time of hearing. • Pass such other order(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice.”

3.

After hearing both the sides and going through the averments made in the condonation application by the assessee, we find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeal within the stipulated time limit. Having regard to the facts of the instant case, we condone the delay of 382 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication in light of 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).

4.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for remitting the issues to the file of lower authorities as impugned order is exparte and assessee failed to furnish necessary details owing to his medical issues. Now the assessee is in a position to submit all the details before the authorities. It is therefore prayed that one more opportunity may be granted.

5.

On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative did not oppose to the request made by ld. Counsel for the assessee.

6.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Assessee is an individual engaged in the business of Developers/supplying of construction material. Income of Rs.10,53,910/- declared in the return filed for the assessment year under consideration on 20.09.2015. Case selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS for verification of Large Investment in Property as compared to total income. Ld. AO noticed that assessee along with others has purchased an immovable property for total consideration of Rs.1.40 crore. Statutory notices were duly served upon the asseseee requiring the assessee to submit the source of investment along with supporting documents and assessee filed his submissions. It is stated that assessee has borrowed loans from relatives and friends. Assessee has filed the confirmation and 7/12 extract etc. However, not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee, ld. AO made addition of Rs.55,51,875/- (being assessee’s share) for unexplained investment u/s.69C of the Act.

7.

Assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but no succour has been provided to him on the ground of non-prosecution as the assessee could not submit the bank statements and details/documents to prove the Identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan creditors. During the course of hearing before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to the medical reasons assessee could not submit the requisite documents before ld.CIT(A) which resulted in passing of exparte order.

8.

Under these given facts and circumstances, we in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties restore the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the course of set-aside proceedings shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is at liberty to adduce all the required submissions/evidences before ld.CIT(A) to substantiate the source of investment in the property. 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.

9.

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

Order pronounced on this 22nd day of July, 2025.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →