AYESHA ABDUL SHAKIR MOMIN,PUNE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

MA 41/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ayesha Abdul Shakir Momin, the appellant, who filed a Miscellaneous Application against the order of the ITAT which upheld the dismissal of her appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) due to a 137-day delay in filing. The ITAT initially concluded that the appellant had not provided any reasons for the delay, leading to the dismissal of her appeal. However, the appellant contended that she had indeed submitted reasons for the delay, which were overlooked. The ITAT acknowledged the oversight and allowed the Miscellaneous Application, recalling the previous order for a fresh examination of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 784509 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL KAVALE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Ignorance of law

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ”एस एम सी” न्यायपीठ पुणेमें। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIALMEMBER Miscellaneous Application No.41/PUN/2025 (arising out of ITA No.2107/PUN/2024) निर्धारणवषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Ayesha Abdul Shakir Momin, Flat No.102, Gulshan Jeelan Malik Nagar, Kondhwa KH, Pune – 411048. V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Pune. PAN: CKGPS0170P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Rahul Kavale – AR Revenue by Shri Ramnath Murkunde – DR Date of hearing 29/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 13/11/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: In this case, Assessee has filed Miscellaneous Application against the ITAT Order in ITA No.2017/PUN/2024 dated 24.01.2025 for A.Y.2015-16. Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.41/PUN/2025 [A] 2 3. The Assessee has filed Miscellaneous Application. Relevant paragraphs are reproduced here as under : “1. The Appellant had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune Bench, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of 137 days' delay in filing, without considering the reasons for the delay 2. The Hon'ble ITAT, in its order dated 24/01/2025, upheld the dismissal, stating that \"the Assessee had not filed any reasons for condonation of delay before CIT(A) 3. This finding by ITAT constitutes a mistake apparent from the record because the Appellant had duly submitted the reasons for condonation of delay before CIT(A). The acknowledgment of the same is enclosed herewith as Supra A. 4. The CIT(A) had reviewed the reasons for condonation of delay. But proceeded with declining those reasons. However, the ITAT incorrectly concluded that the Appellant had not provided any reason for the delay. This discrepancy amounts to a mistake from record apparent requiring rectification. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.41/PUN/2025 [A] 3 5. The Hon'ble ITAT, while dismissing the appeal, has overlooked the records and documentary evidence submitted, leading to a wrong conclusion. Such an error, being evident from the record, warrants rectification under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. In light of the above, the Appellant prays for rectification of the said mistake in the ITAT order dated 24/01/2025 and requests that the appeal be restored for fresh adjudication after considering the valid delay condonation of delay request and the merits of the case. Prayer: The Appellant most humbly prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to rectify the mistake apparent from the record under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, restore the appeal for fresh adjudication after due consideration of the reasons condonation of delay request submitted before CIT(A).” 3.1 Thus, the main contention of the Assessee was that ITAT has recorded incorrect fact that Assessee had not filed any reason before ld.CIT(A) for delay. 4. We have studied the order of ld.CIT(A) and the documents filed by Assessee before ld.CIT(A). It is observed that Assessee had given following reason in the letter filed before ld.CIT(A) : Printed from counselvise.com MA No.41/PUN/2025 [A] 4 “3. I was assured by my erstwhile consultant that appeal will be filed in the requisite time. However, due to no fault on my side, the consultant failed to file appeal in timely manner, and thus I am at loss. I plead you to condone our delay and admit the appeal. 4. I have already submitted the application for Condonation of Delay in Filing an Appeal under Form 35 on 18th July 2024 having ARN: 813599141200724. Kindly acknowledge.” 4.1 However, ITAT in ITA No.2107/PUN/2024 has mentioned as under in the order dated 24.01.2025. “4.1………………………..The Assessee before us has filed an Affidavit stating that due to ignorance of Law, there has been a delay. However, it is observed that as per the submission of the Assessee, Assessee is working in M.A.Rangoonwala College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Pune Campus as P.A. to Principal of the College. Thus, assessee is an educated person working as P.A. to Principal, therefore, Assessee’s pleading that due to ignorance of Law, Assessee could not file appeal in time is not a sufficed reason. The most important fact is that Assessee has not filed any reason before ld.CIT(A) for condonation of delay. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) at the point when he dismissed the appeal, had no knowledge about any reason for delay. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that ld.CIT(A) has rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, we uphold the order of ld.CIT(A).Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed appeal of the assessee on account of Delay. 4.2 Thus, it is a fact that we had incorrectly mentioned that Assessee had not filed any reason before ld.CIT(A) and ld.CIT(A) had no knowledge about any reason for delay. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.41/PUN/2025 [A] 5 5. In these facts and circumstances of the case, it is a mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, we recall the order in ITA No.2107/PUN/2024 dated 24.01.2025 for denovo adjudication. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Application(MA) of the Assessee is allowed. 6. In the result, MA filed by the Assessee is allowed. 7. Registry is directed to re-fix the appeal for hearing in ITA No.2107/PUN/2024 and issue notice to both the parties. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13 November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- VINAY BHAMORE Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददिधांक / Dated : 13 Nov, 2025/ SGR आदेशकीप्रनिनिनपअग्रेनषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपऩिधर्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. नवभधगऩयप्रनिनिनर्, आयकर अपऩिऩय अनर्करण, “एस एम सऩ” बेंच, पपणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गधर्ाफ़धइि / Guard File. आदेशधिपसधर / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपऩिऩय अनर्करण, पपणे/ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "