SANGITADEVI KISHOREKUMAR MUNDRA,ICHALKARANJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2762/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 January 2026AY 2020-21Bench: DR. MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the death of the assessee's CA to be a reasonable cause. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on the merits of the issues raised, after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a CIT(A) order that dismissed her appeal without condoning a 119-day delay. The delay occurred because her Chartered Accountant, who handled her appellate work, passed away. The underlying assessment was a re-assessment under section 147 read with 144B, where the Assessing Officer had assessed her income at ₹2,98,95,493/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned due to the death of the assessee's Chartered Accountant, and if so, whether the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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 “B” BENCH : PUNE

Before: DR. MANISH BORAD & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

Hearing: 12.01.2026Pronounced: 13.01.2026

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated 07/11/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which is arising out of order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 11.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21.

2 ITA.No.2762/PUN/2025 (Sangitadevi Kishorekumar Mundra) 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay in respite of the reason that Chartered Accountant (CA) who looked after her appellate work expired on 23.12.2024, as a result of which, appeal could not be filed in time. He requested that in the interest of justice, assessee may please be provided one more opportunity of hearing to go before the Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication on the issues raised in the instant appeal.

3.

Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, is fair enough in opposing the request of learned counsel for the assessee.

4.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that assessee is an individual and regular return of income not furnished. Income of ₹13,43,290/- declared in the return filed in response to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. In the course of re-assessment proceedings, assessee made various submissions. The Ld.AO concluded the proceedings making various additions and assessed the income at ₹ 2,98,95,493/-.

5.

Aggrieved with the order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), but the same was barred by limitation by 119 days. The reasons for delay were provided by the assessee, which have been 3 ITA.No.2762/PUN/2025 (Sangitadevi Kishorekumar Mundra) reproduced at para No. 2.2 of the impugned order. The main reason for delay is due to sudden death of CA-Suresh Chandra Premraj Kasat on 23.12.2024 who was looking after the taxation matters of the assessee. We find that this is a reasonable cause because for such taxation matters the assessee(s) are dependent on the Tax Consultant and it is not so easy to locate a new Tax Consultant in a short period. Since delay is not intentional therefore adopting a 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), we hereby condone the delay in filing of appeal before Ld.CIT(A).

6.

So far as merits of the cases are concerned, ideally the matter deserves to be restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) as the issues on merits have not been dealt with by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we deem it appropriate to remit back the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for decision afresh on the issues on merits. Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then decide the issues in accordance with law and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and 4 ITA.No.2762/PUN/2025 (Sangitadevi Kishorekumar Mundra) not to take unnecessary adjournments 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.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →