AJAY BHAUSO KADAM,SATARA vs. ITO, WARD 2, SATARA, SATARA
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRAAssessment year : 2013-14
PER R.K. PANDA:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated
23.08.2023 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2013-14. 2. There is a delay of 461 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on 18.02.2020, the e-mail ID for communication of notices was given as under:
marutiwindsatara@rediffmail.com
3. However, the notice to the assessee Shri Ajay Bhauso Kadam was forwarded to pawarassociatessatara@gmail.com. She submitted that in view of the non-
2
communication of the order in the correct e-mail ID, the assessee was not in a position to know the fate of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. Subsequently, when the bank account of the assessee was attached, he came to know about the passing of the order by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. Thereafter, the assessee, after taking advice from the consultant, filed the appeal with a delay of 461 days. She submitted that the delay is not an intentional one and is a bonafide one for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji
& Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) and Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya
Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339, she submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal should be condoned.
The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that there is a delay of 461 days in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. It is also an admitted fact that the notice of hearing from the office of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was communicated to pawarassociatessatara@gmail.com instead of the correct e-mail ID marutiwindsatara@rediffmail.com. We, therefore, find some merit in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within stipulated time.
3
6. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land
Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra) 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 against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
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.”
Respectfully following the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the fact that the notices of hearing were sent to pawarassociatessatara@gmail.com instead of correct e-mail ID pawarassociatessatara@gmail.com, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income on 25.04.2013 declaring total income of Rs.2,44,480/-.
4
Information was received that the assessee, in the capacity of General Power of Attorney holder of Kadam family, has entered into a transaction of sale of land for consideration of Rs.4,53,000/- having market value of Rs.61,04,000/-. Further, during the year under consideration the assessee has purchased the immovable property for a consideration of Rs.1,28,03,000/- and source of investment is unexplained. In view of the above reasons, the Assessing Officer, after recording reasons and obtaining the approval from the competent authority, reopened the assessment and a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 27.03.2019 was issued which was duly served on the assessee. However, the assessee failed to file the return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. Subsequently, due to change of incumbency another notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee, in response to which the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and filed the requisite details from time to time. The Assessing Officer also obtained information from the office of the