KALPANA ANIL GONDHALE,AURABNGABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 802/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 January 2026AY 2012-13Bench: Dr. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purposes

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT condoned the 2552-day delay, finding it neither intentional nor deliberate, and admitted the appeal for adjudication, relying on Apex Court precedents. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue of merits to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, while also instructing the assessee to be vigilant and update contact information.

What were the facts?

Kalpana Anil Gondhale, a housewife, challenged a CIT(A) order for A.Y. 2012-13, which stemmed from an assessment where the AO allowed only 50% deduction u/s 57(iv) on enhanced land compensation interest, assessing her at Rs. 14,99,920/- against her claim of NIL income. Her appeal to CIT(A) was dismissed due to non-appearance, leading to an appeal to the ITAT with a significant delay of 2552 days, which she attributed to her dependence on a tax consultant and unawareness of proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Condonation of a 2552-day delay in filing the appeal. 2. Adjudication of the assessee's claim for exemption/deduction on enhanced land compensation interest. 3. Ensuring a proper opportunity of hearing for the assessee before the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 57(iv),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, SMC BENCH, PUNE

Before: Dr. MANISH BORAD

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Thete Patil
For Respondent: Shri Vishwajit Shinde
Hearing: 19.01.2026

Assessee by : Shri Ramesh Thete Patil (through virtual) Revenue by : Shri Vishwajit Shinde, JCIT Date of hearing : 19.01.2026 Date of : 28.01.2026 pronouncement 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)-1, Aurangabad dated 05.01.2018 framed u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2012-13 which is arising out of order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 11.03.2015.

2.

Registry has informed that there is a delay of 2552 days in filing of the appeal. Application alongwith affidavit for condonation of delay has been filed. The assessee is stated to be an housewife residing at Taluka Kannad, Distt. Aurangabad living alongwith her handicapped son and no other person to support in legal and financial matters. For the income tax proceedings initiated against the assessee, she is only dependent upon the Tax Consultant and passing of the impugned order was informed to her at a very later stage when she came to know about the penalty proceedings. Though Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) strongly objected for the condonation of delay, I find that the delay in filing of the appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. Taking a justice oriented approach and placing reliance on the decision of the 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 in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382) the delay of 2552 in filing of instant appeal is condoned and appeal admitted for adjudication.

3.

At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for affording one more opportunity to the assessee to go before Ld. CIT(A).

4.

On the other hand Ld. DR supported the orders of the Ld. CIT(A).

5.

I have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before me. I find that the assessee declared ‘NIL’ income for A.Y. 2012-13 in the return of income furnished on 09.02.2014 after claiming exemption for the interest income of Rs. 28,78,877/- on account of enhanced land compensation. However during the course of the assessment proceedings validly carried out after serving notice u/s 143(3) of the Act. Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) only allowed 50% deduction u/s 57(iv) of the Act of the alleged interest income on enhanced land compensation and assessed the income at Rs. 14,99,920/-

Aggrieved with the addition made by Ld. AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but failed to appear on the dates of hearing granted by the Ld. CIT(A) on five occasions i.e. 17.08.2017, 28.09.2017, 01.11.2017, 29.11.2017 and 29.12.2017. It has been contemplated before me based on the affidavit filed for condonation of delay that assessee was unaware of the notices of hearing and she was totally dependent upon the Tax Consultant. I therefore in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee and restore the issue on merits raised in ground No. 1 in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. The impugned order is set aside and Ld. CIT(A) shall decide in accordane with law as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Further assessee is required to update her latest e-mail id and mobile No. on the website and also remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

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

Order pronounced on this 28th day of January, 2026.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →