BHUSHAN BALASAHEB BAGUL,DHULE V. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, DHULE, DHULE

ITA 1253/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Bhushan Balasaheb Bagul, the appellant, who contested the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, which arose from an assessment order under sections 144 and 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment added unexplained money amounting to Rs. 28,73,000 under section 69A of the Act, based on information about cash deposits in the assessee's bank account. The CIT(A) initially dismissed the appeal due to non-compliance with hearing notices, which the assessee attributed to health issues and the pandemic. The ITAT found merit in the assessee's reasons for delay and non-compliance, leading to the setting aside of the CIT(A)'s order and a directive for a fresh hearing on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 780565 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2025
• 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: HARISH BIST
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD S. SHINGTE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Non compliance

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1253/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Bhushan Balasaheb Bagul, 20, Satyam Colony, Pramod Nagar, Dhule Dhule 424002, Maharashtra PAN : AUPPB6339N Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dhule Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 09.08.2023 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 18.12.2019 passed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act. 2. Registry has informed that there is delay of 562 days in preferring the instant appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay explaining the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeal. 3. After hearing both the sides and perusing the averments made in the Affidavit, we are satisfied ‘reasonable cause’ Appellant by : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Respondent by : Shri Harish Bist Date of hearing : 17.09.2025 Date of pronouncement : 10.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1253/PUN/2025 Bhushan Balasaheb Bagul 2 prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We note that the assessee would not have gained from 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 of 562 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to non compliance to the notice(s) of hearing issued by ld.CIT(A), appeal of the assessee has been dismissed in limine. However, request has been made to provide one more opportunity to go before ld.CIT(A) to place contentions on both legal as well as merits of the case by restoring the issues raised in the instant appeal. He further submitted that the first notice issued by ld.CIT(A) was during covid-19 pandemic outbreak prevailed across the country and further for the reasons stated in the Affidavit assessee could not make compliance for the remaining notices of hearing. 5. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities. 6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and filed return of income for A.Y. 2012-13 on 31.03.2013 declaring income of Rs.2,76,373/-. Based on the information about cash deposit in the bank account maintained by the assessee with HDFC Bank, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued and duly served upon the assessee on 29.03.2019. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1253/PUN/2025 Bhushan Balasaheb Bagul 3 However, assessee failed to respond by filing the return of income. Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) thereafter carried out the proceedings and in the Best Judgment Assessment framed u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act concluded by making addition for unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act at Rs.28,73,000/-. Assessed income at Rs.31,49,373/-. 7. Aggrieved with the addition made by ld. AO assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but there was delay in filing of the appeal and reasons mentioned is that at the relevant point of time assessee was facing severe health issues. In the meanwhile, income tax demand was raised on him. Assessee went into depression and was not able to respond. However, ld.CIT(A) without specifically mentioning the number of days delay has also issued notice fixing the hearing on 28.01.2021, 12.09.2022 and 08.08.2023. As the assessee failed to respond and explain the delay in filing of the appeal, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine. 8. We therefore under the given facts and circumstance and that the first notice was issued during covid-19 pandemic restrictions and also assessee had ‘reasonable cause’ for not filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Therefore, taking justice oriented approach and also relying on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. (supra) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), we condone the delay in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A). 9. Since ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay and has not dealt with merits of the case as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act, we deem it proper to Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1253/PUN/2025 Bhushan Balasaheb Bagul 4 provide one more opportunity to the assessee by remitting the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) shall in the course of set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after considering the submissions/evidences to be filed by the assessee shall pass a speaking order 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 (Bombay) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. 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 hereby set aside and effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 10th day of October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 10th October, 2025. Satish Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1253/PUN/2025 Bhushan Balasaheb Bagul 5 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, “SMC” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” 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 "