ASMITA AMOL PATIL,KOLHAPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

ITA 1829/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Asmita Amol Patil, the appellant, who contested the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, which dismissed her appeal due to a delay of about four months in filing. The appeal was originally against an addition of Rs.1,56,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2015-16. The Tribunal considered the circumstances of the delay, including the appellant's lack of technological proficiency and the cessation of her tax practitioner's services, which contributed to the late filing. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of substantial justice over technicalities and decided to restore the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787899 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2025
• 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: A D KULKARNI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Competent authority
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 69; 139

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No.1829/PUN/2025 Assessment year : 2015-16 Asmita Amol Patil Plot No.10, Ayodhya Colony, Line Bazar, Kolhapur – 416006 Vs. ITO, Kolhapur PAN: BHBPP5193E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri A D Kulkarni Date of hearing : 24-11-2025 Date of pronouncement : 24-11-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.05.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2015-16. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in dismissing the appeal on account of delay in filing of the appeal and thereby sustaining the addition of Rs.1,56,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.1829/PUN/2025 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed her return of income u/s 139 of the Act. As per information available on record the assessee has made certain financial transactions, the details of which are as under: 4. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened as per provisions of section 147 of the Act after taking approval of the competent authority. Since the assessee did not comply to the various statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the Assessing Officer, in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 12.03.2023, determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,57,85,123/-. 5. Since there was delay in filing of the appeal by about 4 months before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the assessee could not explain any reasonable cause for the delay in filing of the appeal before him. While doing so, Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.1829/PUN/2025 he also rejected the contention of the assessee that she was not well versed in using technology due to which she could not file the appeal in time. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a lady and is not well versed in using technology. Further, the erstwhile tax practitioner had stopped visiting the IT portal on her behalf resulting in the delay. Relying on various decisions, he submitted that the matter should be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit. 8. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. He however, has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 9. 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 find the Assessing Officer in the instant case in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,57,85,123/- on the ground that the assessee failed to Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.1829/PUN/2025 file the return in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act and also there is no evidence on record to explain the source for the investment in purchase of immovable property and non-disclosure of various receipts such as insurance commission, profit on contractual receipts, interest income and fees for technical and professional services etc. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee due to delay in filing of the appeal by about 4 months and the assessee could not explain any reasonable cause for such delay in filing of the appeal. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee was not well versed in using the technology due to which she could not file the appeal in time. Further, the erstwhile tax practitioner, who was looking after the tax matters has stopped visiting the IT portal for which the assessee could not come to know of any order passed by the Assessing Officer. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that in the interest of justice the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate her case by filing the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. It is also his submission that in view of various decisions, a small delay of about 4 months in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have been condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and he should have adjudicated the appeal on merit. 10. 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 Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.1829/PUN/2025 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. 11. 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.” 12. Following the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court cited (supra) and considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the considered opinion that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have condoned the delay and decided the issue on merit. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and restore the issue back to his file with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee and decide the appeal on merit as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to participate in the appeal proceedings and submit the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.1829/PUN/2025 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. 13. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court at the conclusion of hearing itself i.e. on 24th November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (JUSTICE (RETD.) C.V. BHADANG) (R. K. PANDA) PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 24th November, 2025 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.1829/PUN/2025 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 27.11.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 27.11.2025 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 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 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "