DYANSAWANDHANI GRAMIN BIGARSHATI SAHAKARI PATASANSHATA MARAYDIT,SHIRWAL, KHANDALA, SATARA, MAHARASHTRA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 4 SATARA, AAYKAR BHAWAN, MANJUNATH MANOR, PAWAI NAKA, SATARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2914/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 January 2026AY 2018-19Bench: him and dismissed the appeal in limine without considering that the case of the assessee's case was dealt by the consultant Late Mr. M.K. Kulkarni. However due to the death of Mr. M.K. Kulkarni on 01.01.2024 assessee was not aware about the status of the proceedings, the delay has occurred.5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that 'reasonable cause' existed for the 30-month delay, considering the COVID-19 pandemic and the tax consultant's demise. Citing judicial precedents emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities, the Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on the merits of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a cooperative society, claimed a deduction under section 80P for interest income from cooperative banks, which the Assessing Officer disallowed. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) for A.Y. 2018-19 was filed with a 30-month delay and subsequently dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) without condoning the delay or considering the merits, citing reasons of COVID-19 pandemic and the death of its tax consultant.

What were the issues?

Whether there was reasonable cause for condoning the 30-month delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), and whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal in limine without considering its merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 143(3A),Section 143(3B),Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)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, Shri Shashank Ojha (virtual)
Hearing: 14.01.2026Pronounced: 20.01.2026

आदेश / ORDER

1.

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 12.11.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 12.03.2021 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act.

2.

At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him and dismissed the appeal in limine without considering that the case of the assessee’s case was dealt by the consultant Late Mr. M.K. Kulkarni. However due to the death of Mr. M.K. Kulkarni on 01.01.2024 assessee was not aware about the status of the proceedings, the delay has occurred.

4.

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before me. I note that the assessee is a Cooperative society and return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 furnished on 04.10.2018 declaring Nil income. Case selected for scrutiny for examining the “Deduction from Total income under Chapter VIA. Certain details were fled. However, ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with regard to the claim of deduction u/s.80P of the Act for the interest income earned from the Cooperative Banks and made the addition thereof treating it as ‘income from other sources’. Assessment order framed on 12.03.2021. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A), however, the appeal before ld.CIT(A) has been filed on 25.11.2024 with a delay of about 30 months. Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine being barred by limitation and has not dealt with merits of the case.

5.

The moot point is as to whether such a huge delay of more than two years deserves to be condoned. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. In that case, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court condoned the delay.

Dyansawandhani Gramin Bigarshati Sahakari Patasanshata Maryadit, 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, 167 ITR 471 (SC) 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. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, 389 ITR 250 (Bom.) held that in the matter of condonation of delay an overall view in the larger interest of justice has to be taken. None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bonafides.

7.

Turning to the facts of the present case, the impugned order by the NFAC was passed on 12.03.2021. The assessee filed the appeal on 25.11.2024. I note that the delay of 30 months has occurred in filing of the appeal before ld.CT(A) on two grounds firstly due to covid-19 pandemic restrictions prevailed across the country and the period from 18.12.2021 till 31.05.2022 is covered by the covid-19 pandemic prevailed all over the country. Excluding the covid-19 period, the delay is about two years. Second reason is due to the death of Tax Consultant Mr. M.K. Kulkarni on 01.01.2024 and the office files were returned to the assessee at a much later date, i.e.in the month of November, 2024. I find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A). Applying the principles enunciated in the decisions referred to hereinabove, in the facts of the present case, I deem it fit to condone the delay in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A).

Dyansawandhani Gramin Bigarshati Sahakari Patasanshata Maryadit, 8. Since ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) by virtue of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT’ [2025, 171 taxmann.com 92 (Del)], wherein their Hon’ble Lordship vide para 13 have categorically held that, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to proceed to decide the ground which did not arise from the impugned order passed by first appellate authority, irrespective of such ground was raised in first appeal or not.

9.

Under these given facts and circumstances the issues raised in the instant appeal are remitted back to the file of ld.CT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

10.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on this 20th day of January, 2026.

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →