CHADRALOP SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL,AURANGABAD V. EXEMPTION WARD, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

ITA 778/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Chadralop Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, a trust, which appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2015-16. The appeal was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to being barred by limitation, as the assessee's consultant failed to file it within the prescribed time. The ITAT found that the consultant's delay was not intentional and decided to condone the delay, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes and remitting the case back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 784058 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 24-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UODOL RAJ SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHIL S PATHAK
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 148; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VIJAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.778/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Chadralop Shikshan prasarak Mandal, Gut No. 52, Tuljapar Shiwar, Harssol Sawangi, Jalgaon Road, Sawangi, Aurangabad. PAN : AABTC 0431 A vs. CIT (Exemption), Aurangabad (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nikhil S Pathak, AR For Revenue : Shri Uodol Raj Singh, DR Date of Hearing : 12.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated 30/09/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 144 days in filing of the present appeal. An application for condonation of delay along with affidavit is placed on record. One of the Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA.No.778/PUN./2025 (Chadralop Shikshan Prasarak Mandal) reasons stated by the assessee is that for filing of appeal, the assessee is dependent on the professional, who took extra time for analyzing the case and examining the financial records and collate necessary data to prepare a comprehensive appeal. We find that the assessee has been prevented from a reasonable and sufficient cause and the delay is not an intentional. Taking a justice oriented approach and also placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107] and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay of 144 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that assessee has not responded to the notices of hearing issued by the AO as well as Ld.CIT(A), resulting into dismissal of assessee’s appeal. The only prayer made is to provide one more opportunity to go before the Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication of all the issues raised in the present appeal. 4. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 5. We have heard rival submissions and perused the records placed before us. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA.No.778/PUN./2025 (Chadralop Shikshan Prasarak Mandal) 6. We observe that the assessee is a trust and case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2015-16 has been reopened on account of information about cash deposit and receipt of interest and commission income. Admittedly, regular return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act has not been filed by the assessee. In spite of assessee being served valid statutory notices u/s. 148 & 142(1) of the Act and other show-cause notices, the assessee did not appear nor filed any submissions before the AO, resultantly, best judgment assessment framed by the AO making additions to the tune of Rs. 74,96,212/-. 7. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on 09/06/2023 which was barred by limitation. Though, the assessee mentioned the reason that the consultant, who was appointed by the assessee, had not filed the appeal within the time limit, but Ld.CIT(A) did not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine. 8. As observed above, we note that the assessee is dependent on the consultant for looking after the appeal works and any inadvertent mistake or delay at the end of the consultant should not disentitle the assessee’s right of filing the appeal as well as adjudication of the issues on merits. We therefore, considering the fact that delay in filing before the Ld.CIT(A) is not intentional and the assessee would not have gained from delaying the appeal, hereby condone the delay in Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA.No.778/PUN./2025 (Chadralop Shikshan Prasarak Mandal) filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). However, in the larger interest of justice, the assessee deserves one more opportunity to go before the Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication of the issues on merits. 9. We, therefore, remit back the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournments unless required for reasonable cause. 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 in the open Court on 14.11.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [VINAY BHAMORE] [MANISH BORAD] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune, Dated 14th November, 2025 vr/- Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA.No.778/PUN./2025 (Chadralop Shikshan Prasarak Mandal) 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 // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "