SUNIL SUBHASH SHELAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), NASHIK
Facts
Sunil Subhash Shelar declared income of ₹ 4,94,690 for AY 2020-21. The AO, after e-verification, estimated income under section 44AD at 8% of ₹ 7,37,54,170, making an addition of ₹ 59,00,333, and assessed total income at ₹ 63,95,023. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was filed with a delay of 95 days and was dismissed *in limine* by the CIT(A) for non-condonation of delay.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 95-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), relying on a justice-oriented approach and Supreme Court judgments. It remitted the issue regarding the addition of ₹ 59,00,333 back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication under section 250(6), directing the CIT(A) to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Key Issues
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal before CIT(A). 2. Legality of income addition made under section 44AD of the Act.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 144B, 44AD, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE
BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A.No. 3203/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year 2020-2021) Sunil Subhash Shelar, ITO, Ward-2(1), Nashik. 31 Sai Charan Bungalow, Near Sai Baba Temple, vs. Behind Sharad Chandra Market, Makhmalabad, Link Road, Nashik. PAN : DETPS 2302 H (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : None For Revenue : Shri Pramod Shahakar, JCIT Date of Hearing : 11.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 17.02.2026
ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) /NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated 06/11/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which is arising out of assessment order dated 27.03.2025 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.
2 ITA.No.3203/PUN./2025 (Sunil Subhash Shelar) 2. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee though valid notice served upon him. We, therefore, proceed to adjudicate the appeal exparte qua assessee with the assistance of Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) and the documents available on record. 3. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. With the assistance of Ld.DR, we observe that Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay, even though assessee has mentioned reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time in column 15 at Form No.35. Submissions have been filed before this Tribunal requesting for condonation of delay in the grounds of appeal and stated that in the interest of justice, delay may pleased be condoned and the issues raised in the instant appeal may please be restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. 4. We observe that assessee is an individual and declared income of ₹ 4,94,690/- and the return of income for A.Y. 2020- 21 filed on 28.09.2020. The case of the assessee has been flagged in the insight portal in accordance with the E- verification scheme and the preliminary verification report has been matched by the Commissioner of Income Tax E- verification to prepare the final verification report, as per which the value at risk has been arrived at ₹ 7,37,54,170/-. Thereafter, Ld.AO validly issued and served notices u/s. 148 of the Act. In absence of any corroborative evidence filed by the
3 ITA.No.3203/PUN./2025 (Sunil Subhash Shelar) assessee, Ld.AO estimated the income u/s. 44AD of the Act at 8% of the total business receipts of the assessee at ₹7,37,54,170/- and made the addition of ₹ 59,00,333/- and assessed the income at ₹ 63,95,023/-.
Thereafter, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the same was barred by limitation by 95 days. Delay has arisen on account of Tax Consultant, who did not file the appeal and on getting information of such non-filing, assessee approached new Consultant and filed the appeal, but in the meantime, delay of 95 days occurred. Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. We, however, taking justice oriented approach and also taking guidance from the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107] and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), condone the delay of 95 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).
So far as merits of the case are concerned, we deem it appropriate to remit the issue regarding addition of ₹ 59,00,333/- to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and to pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and
4 ITA.No.3203/PUN./2025 (Sunil Subhash Shelar) then decide the issues in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 17.02.2026
Sd/- Sd/- [ASTHA CHANDRA] [MANISH BORAD] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Pune, Dated 17th February, 2026 vr/- Copy to
The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. PCIT concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File.
By Order //True Copy //
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune.
