NAZIM RIAZUDDIN SAIYED,TURQUOISE NYATI EMPIRE KHARADI PUNE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 4(4), PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE, PUNE

ITA 287/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 March 2026AY 2019-20Bench: DR.MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the justice-oriented approach and relevant judgments. Since the Ld.CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merits, the case was remitted back for de novo adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a retired army person, filed an appeal with a delay of 1909 days. The delay was due to a reasonable cause and was not intentional. The Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) should be condoned, and if so, the matter should be adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)(a),Section 36(1)(va)

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 “SMC”, PUNE

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Doshi
For Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Hearing: 12.03.2026Pronounced: 17.03.2026

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2019-20 is directed against the order dated 31.12.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) arising out of Intimation Order dated 26.02.2020 passed u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I observe that the assessee is a Retired Army person and income of Rs. 11,44,790/- declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2019-20 filed on 24.10.2019. Return processed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act disallowing the deduction claimed by the asssessee for delayed payment of PF and ESIC but before the due date of filing the return of income u/s

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →