BALWANT VASANTRAV JADHAV,NASHIK V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

ITA 1101/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Balwant Vasantrav Jadhav, the appellant, who contested an assessment order for the assessment year 2015-16, which included certain additions to his income. The appeal was initially dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) due to a delay of 148 days in filing, attributed to the assessee's lack of knowledge about income tax laws and procedures. The ITAT, referencing judgments from the Hon27ble Apex Court, found the delay unintentional and admitted the appeal for adjudication. The Tribunal did not address the merits of the case but remitted it back to the ld.CIT(A) for a decision on the substantive issues raised.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788110 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UDOL RAJ SINGH
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Initiation of penalty proceedings

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1101/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Balwant Vasantrav Jadhav, At Post Antapur, Baglan, Nashik 423302, Maharashtra PAN :AQEPJ5033C Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Nashik Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 is directed against the order dated 26.02.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre emanating out of Assessment Order dated 22.03.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and available material records. 3. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. We notice that the assessee is an individual and assessment for A.Y. 2015-16 has been completed on 22.03.2023 u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act wherein certain additions were made. Assessee Appellant(s) by : None Respondent by : Shri Udol Raj Singh Date of hearing : 10.11.2025 Date of pronouncement : 27.11.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1101/PUN/2025 Balwant Vasantrav Jadhav 2 challenged these additions in the appeal filed before ld.CIT(A) but the same was instituted on 16.09.2023, i.e. with a delay of 148 days. Though the assessee mentioned the reasons for delay in Form No.35, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine. The reasons mentioned in Form No.35 are as follows : “A delay of 147 days has occurred in filing the appeal. The appellant assessee is 12th pass only and has little knowledge about the income tax laws and rules. He is not computer savvy also. He has no idea of about assessment order and various penalty proceedings initiation. A letter dated 17/08/2023 issued by the department was received by him then only he approached to Ulhas Borse & Co. of Nashik where he was explained about the delay in filing appeal and advised to file appeal against the assessment order. The delay has occurred on which the appellant had no control. Therefore, your honour is humbly and respectfully prayed to kindly condone the delay.” 4. On perusal of the above reasons, we observe that the delay in filing of the appeal before ld.CIT(A) is not intentional and assessee would not have gained anything by filing the appeal with a delay. We therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay in filing of the appeal before ld.CIT(A) and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. However, since ld.CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merits, we deem it appropriate to remit back all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act in light of judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT (C) vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) (2017) 297 CTR 614 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1101/PUN/2025 Balwant Vasantrav Jadhav 3 (Bombay) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is directed to update latest email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 27th day of November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 27th November, 2025. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "