AMEETSINGH AJITSINGH RAJPAL,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

PDF

ITA 2390/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 January 2026AY 2021-22Bench: Dr. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee, Ameetsingh Ajitsingh Rajpal, filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which had dismissed his appeal due to a delay of 741 days. The original assessment order framed by the AO under sections 143(3) r.w.s. 144B had disallowed the carry forward of a business loss of Rs. 46,01,294/-. The assessee submitted an affidavit along with medical reports to explain that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was unintentional and due to sufficient cause.

Held

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), finding that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause and the delay was not intentional. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the merits of the issues raised. The CIT(A) is directed to grant the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

Key Issues

Whether the delay of 741 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned based on the assessee's explanation of sufficient cause.

Sections Cited

Section 250, Section 143(3), Section 144B, Income Tax Act, 1961

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · SC
3,926 citing

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A BENCH,

Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Suhas

For Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT

आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 dated 29.08.2025 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2021- 22 which is arising out of assessment order framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act.

At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the affidavit placed on record submitted that there was a delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and the delay was not intentional and the reasons have been stated in the affidavit. He prayed that the delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) may please be condoned and fresh opportunity may please be granted to appear before Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication of the issues raised in the instant appeal.

Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) on the other hand supported the order of Ld. CIT(A).

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The assessee is an individual and assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B has been framed on 08.12.2022 and Assessing Officer (AO) has not allowed the carry forward of business loss of Rs. 46,01,294/- Against the order of the Ld. AO the appeal has been preferred by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) with the delay of 741 days. Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation. We have gone through the affidavit filed by the assessee alongwith the medical history supported by medical reports and find that the assessee was prevented for sufficient cause in not filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) within the prescribed time limit and that the delay is not intentional. Placing reliance on judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others(1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) (Supreme Court) and the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382), we condone the delay in filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A).