SAU. ANANDIBAI HIRACHAND SHAH PHALTANKAR TRUST,PUNE, MAHARASHTRA vs. EXEMPTION WARD1(1), INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1540/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 July 2025Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1540/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 | Anandibai Hirachand Vs. ITO (Exemptions), | Shah Phaltankar Trust, | Sinhgad Road, Manikbaug, | Anandnagar, Pune- 411051. | PAN : AAITS8972K Appellant Ward-1, Pune. Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia Date of hearing : 10.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 10.07.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), considering the Supreme Court judgment in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation and the circumstances of the pandemic. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits after granting a proper opportunity of hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a charitable trust, filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against an assessment order for AY 2012-13. There was a delay of 742 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), which the assessee attributed to Covid-19 restrictions. The Ld. CIT(A) did not condone this delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the pandemic and the Supreme Court's ruling on extension of limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 441 ITR 722
    441 ITR 722 · 2022 · SC
    162 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia
Hearing: 10.07.2025Pronounced: 10.07.2025

ORDER

PER MANISH BORAD, AM:

1.

This appeal filed at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-7, Kolkata [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 19.06.2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13.

2.

When the case called for none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, on perusal of the grounds of appeal

and the impugned order, I note that there is delay of 742 days in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was on account of Covid

19. Pandemic restriction but Ld. CIT(A) failed to condone. Ld. DR has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

3.

I have heard Ld. DR and perused the records placed before me. The assessee which is a charitable trust has been assessed u/s 144 of the Act vide order dated 23.11.2019 for A.Y. 2012-13. The appeal before Ld. CIT(A) has been filed on 03.01.2022. Admittedly, there is delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A). However, the major portion of delay approx 22 months i.e. from 20.03.2020 to 03.01.2022 deserves to be excluded in view of the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re (2022) 441 ITR 722 dated 10.01.2022. I am therefore of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) ought to have taken a liberal and sympathetic view and condoned the delay in filing of the appeal. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and hereby condone the delay in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Ld. CIT(A) to deal with the merits of the case raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal mentioned in Form No.35 and decide in accordance with law as contemplated in section 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →