Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee did not file an Income Tax Return for AY 2018-19. The Assessing Officer, based on Insight portal information, made additions of Rs.1,08,20,000/- for short-term capital gain and Rs.11,27,000/- for unexplained investment under section 69. The assessee's subsequent appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed due to a 125-day delay in filing, as no application for condonation of delay was submitted.
Held
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's explanation of illness of the mother and relying on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing substantial justice, directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to condone the 125-day delay. The matter is remitted to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a decision on merits, after providing the assessee due opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
Condonation of a 125-day delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, and whether illness of the assessee's mother constitutes a reasonable cause for such delay.
Sections Cited
Section 69, Section 148A(d), Section 148, Section 142(1), Section 147, Section 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.07.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2018-19.
Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in dismissing the appeal on account of delay in filing of the appeal by 125 days and thereby sustaining the addition of Rs.1,08,20,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of short term capital gain and Rs.11,27,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the assessment year 2018-19. Information was received on Insight portal as per Risk Management Strategy formulated by CBDT that the assessee along with others sold immovable property for a consideration of Rs.5,41,00,000/- on 21.04.2017 wherein the assessee’s share is Rs.1,08,20,000/-. Further the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.11,27,000/- in the bank account maintained with Karnala Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd. The Assessing Officer, therefore, passed an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 05.04.2022. Accordingly, statutory notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 05.04.2022 asking the assessee to file return of income within 30 days. However, no return was filed. Subsequently a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act also remained un-complied with. The Assessing Officer, therefore, completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,19,47,000/- wherein he made addition of Rs.1,08,20,000/- on account of short term capital gain and Rs.11,27,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act.
Since the assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 125 days before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay on the ground that the assessee has not filed any application for condonation of delay.
Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset filed an affidavit along with medical certificates explaining the reasons for such delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC which is due to illness of the mother of the assessee. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) and various other decisions, she submitted that the delay should have been condoned and the appeal should have been decided on merit.
The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the assessee has not proved justifiable reasons for such delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has rightly dismissed the appeals on account of delay in filing of the same.
We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that there was a delay of 125 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. We find the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC explained the reasons for such delay which is due to illness of the mother of the assessee. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have considered the same as reasonable cause and condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merit.
We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (supra) has 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. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
We find recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under:
“14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.”
In the light of the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited (supra), we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the issue on merit as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make his submissions, if any, on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th January, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 9th January, 2026 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 1. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. 5. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune
S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 08.01.2026 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 08.01.2026 Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before the 3 JM/AM Second Member Draft discussed/approved by Second 4 AM/AM Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS Date on which the file goes to the Office 9 Superintendent 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order