UJJWALA MACHHINDRA BHUJJBAL,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 240 days, admitting the appeal. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a delay of 240 days in filing. An affidavit was filed by the assessee stating that the delay was due to lack of proper guidance and unawareness.
What were the issues?
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and if the CIT(A) had correctly adjudicated the case on merits.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, 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 2015-16 is directed against the order dated 07.11.2024 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 01.05.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act.
When the appeal was called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. However, with the able assistance from the ld. Departmental Representative and also perusal of the records, we notice that in the impugned order appeal of the assessee stand dismissed on account of delay of 240 days in filing of the appeal before ld.CIT(A). An affidavit has been filed by the assessee stating that due to lack of proper guidance and unawareness the appeal could not be filed in time. It prima-facie indicates that there is no intentional delay on the part of assessee. In the interest of natural justice, the delay in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A) deserves to be condoned in light of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra) wherein it was 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 thus condone the delay of 240 days in filing of the instant appeal before ld.CIT(A) and admit the appeal.
We further considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that ld.CIT(A) has not passed a speaking order on merits of the case, remit the issues raised on merit back 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 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026