SUNIL VILAS BHOSALE,SANGLI vs. ITO WARD 1, SANGLI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 87 days, considering the COVID-19 pandemic, and remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for being barred by limitation due to a delay of 87 days. The delay occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessment order for AY 2018-19 was passed u/s.143(3) with additions.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Whether the CIT(A) should adjudicate the appeal on merits after condoning the delay.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 143(3A),Section 143(3B),Section 68,Section 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- 441 ITR 722162 citing441 ITR 722 · 2022 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE
Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
आदेश / ORDER
PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to assessment year 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 16.10.2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment order dated 09.04.2021 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act.
At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine being barred by limitation on account of delay of 87 days in filing of the appeal. He stated that the delay was on account of covid-19 pandemic prevailed across the country and therefore prayed for remitting the issues on merit to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessment order in the case of assessee for A.Y. 2018-19 was framed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 09.04.2021 assessing the income at Rs.2,85,30,910/- wherein addition of Rs.2,74,05,450/- was made invoking the provisions of section 68 of the Act. Assessee filed an appeal before ld.CIT(A) assailing the order of the AO but there was delay of 87 days. Such delay of 87 days ought to have been condoned by the ld.CIT(A), as at that point of time, country was passing through covid-19 pandemic and restrictions were put in and almost two years period have been removed out of the limitation period by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation In re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC). Apparently, it seems that ld.CIT(A) has not taken cognizance of this aspect and has dismissed the appeal by not admitting it on account of delay of 87 days, We therefore under the facts and circumstances of the case condone the delay of 87 days and remit the issues raised to the file of ld.CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate the matter on merits and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act for which a reasonable opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide correct email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is further directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.CIT(A) shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of ld.CIT(A) is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 30th day of April, 2025.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026