ANITA MUKUND PUJARI,SOLAPUR V. ITO, WARD 2(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

ITA 234/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Anita Mukund Pujar, the appellant, contesting an ex-parte assessment order by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-2(1), Solapur, which added Rs. 16,28,500 as unexplained money to her income for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The addition was based on non-compliance with notices during the assessment proceedings, partly occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic. The appellant's initial appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a significant delay in filing, attributed to the pandemic and mishandling by her consultant. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments, citing precedents that favor adjudication on merits over strict adherence to procedural timelines.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 396602 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P. MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: P. D. KUDVA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 144; 263

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.234/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-2016) Anita Mukund Pujar, B-1, Nirmiti Samruddhi, Phase-1, Indiranagar, Solapur-413 004 PAN : AIYPK 9620 J vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Solapur. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri P.D. Kudva For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of Hearing : 08.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.05.2025 ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM: The appeal filed by assessee is directed against the order dated 05.12.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) arising out of Assessment Order dated 20.09.2021 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 & 144B of the Act pertaining Assessment Year (“AY”) 2015-16. 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) completed the assessment ex-parte on account of non- compliance to notice(s) issued by him during the assessment proceedings. The Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 16,28,500/- to the returned income of Rs. 5,38,140/- of the assessee as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act on account of assessee’s failure to provide the details/ documentary evidence relating to cash deposit of Rs. 16,28,500/-. He submitted that the non-compliance before the Ld. AO was not intentional but has resulted due to the reason that the notice(s) 2 ITA.No.234/PUN./2025 (Anita Mukund Pujar) were issued by the Ld. AO partly falls within the Covid Period. He submitted that there was a delay of 302 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee without admitting the same. By drawing reference to the reasons stated in the affidavit(s) of the assessee and her husband filed before the Ld. CIT(A) (pages 14-18 of the Paper Book refers, the Ld. AR submitted that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was not intentional. The assessee handed over the notice(s) to his Consultant, Mr. Abhijeet Uday Torvi, who was an accountant looking after the tax matters of the assessee, for necessary compliance but he was not capable to handle the notices as he was not a qualified tax professional / chartered and he kept pending the matter with him for months together. The assessee thereafter approached a Chartered Accountant for necessary compliance and filed all the necessary details/ documents before the Ld. CIT(A) in support of her claim, along with her application for condonation of delay (pages 1 to 13 of the Paper Book refers). He submitted that the assessee has a strong case on merits and therefore prayed that matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A)/ AO to decide the case on merits after providing the opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/ AO. 3. We have heard the Ld. Represtatives of the parties and perused the record as well as paper book filed by the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee. We notice that the assessment order is passed ex-parte. Notices issued by the Ld. AO partly falls during the Covid-19 pandemic period prevailed across the country as the notice(s) were issued to the assessee seeking compliance between February 2021 to September 2021. It is an admitted fact that there is a delay of 302 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). But the Ld. CIT(A), relying on various decisions 3 ITA.No.234/PUN./2025 (Anita Mukund Pujar) mentioned in appellate order, has not considered the submissions of the assessee and not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal as inadmissible on the ground that assessee has not demonstrated that sufficient cause existed for non-filing the appeal within due time and neglected/omitted to assert its rights of appeal in a timely manner. We however, find some merit in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within stipulated time. 4. 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. 5. 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.” 6. Considering the totality of facts and respectfully following the decision(s) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), we deem it fit in the interest of justice and fair play to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. 4 ITA.No.234/PUN./2025 (Anita Mukund Pujar) CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits of the case regarding the addition made by the Ld. AO and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act as per fact and law, after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee is further directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment under any pretext whatsoever, unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to pass the appropriate order in accordance with law. Ground nos. 1 to 3 of appeal raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26.05.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [RAMA KANTA PANDA] [ASTHA CHANDRA] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 26th May, 2025 vr/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Pune concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. By Order //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune. "