DHAIRYASHIL SHRIDHAR GAUD ,PUNE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(1), PUNE

ITA 9/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Dhairyashil Shridhar Gaud, a small businessman, who appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, which dismissed his appeal due to a delay of 111 days in filing. The original assessment by the Assessing Officer was made under sections 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining the assessee's income at Rs.40,64,827 for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee had not filed his return of income despite receiving notices under sections 148 and 142(1) of the Act. The Tribunal, referencing decisions from the Hon'ble Supreme Court, emphasized the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations and directed the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC to adjudicate the appeal on its merits after condoning the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312471 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC), Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRADDHA NICHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N C LAHOTI
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.9/PUN/2025 Assessment year : 2018-19 Dhairyashil Shridhar Gaud S.No.22, Akashraj Society, Flat No.101, Near Reliance Mart, Ravet, Pune – 412101 Vs. ITO, Ward 9(1), Pune PAN: AMWPG9505C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri N C Lahoti Department by : Smt. Shraddha Nichal Date of hearing : 30-04-2025 Date of pronouncement : 30-04-2025 O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.11.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2018-19. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee on account of delay. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income. Information was obtained that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.24,60,000/-, cash withdrawal of Rs.1,01,20,000/- and was reported to have received contractual receipts of Rs.1,77,86,600/- from various 2 ITA No.9/PUN/2025 sources and also received Rs.45,000/- as receipts on technical / professional services. Since the assessee has not filed his return of income, the Assessing Officer issued an order u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 04.04.2022. However, despite receipt of such notice, the assessee did not file the return of income. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued on number of times and reminders also, but the assessee neither filed any return of income nor responded to the various notices. The Assessing Officer therefore, completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.40,64,827/-, the details of which are as under: “(a)Business Income Rs.15,59,827/- (b) Income from other sources Rs.25,05,000/-“ 4. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a delay of 111 days. The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not satisfied with the reasons given in the condonation application and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee as inadmissible. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee is a small businessman and was not aware of the legal provisions and procedures of the income tax act. He was not properly guided by his previous consultant for which 3 ITA No.9/PUN/2025 all these unfortunate events happened. He submitted that only after receipt of the high pitch demand order the assessee realized the mistake committed by his consultant. Due to high pitch demand and assessee’s lack of knowledge of the Income Tax Act, he could not file his first appeal within time. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC rejected the appeal on the ground that no evidence was produced for the delay. He submitted that evidence could not be submitted for the quarrel between the assessee and the then consultant by any positive evidence. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) and various other decisions, he submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have been condoned and the appeal should have been decided on merit. 7. The Ld. DR on the other hand referring to the chronology of events before the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC submitted that the assessee has not come forward with any reasonable cause for condoning the delay before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. She submitted that the assessee was receiving huge amount of contract receipts as well as professional receipts and it cannot be said that the assessee is not aware of the income tax provisions. She accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC being justified should be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee be dismissed. 4 ITA No.9/PUN/2025 8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that due to delay in filing of the appeal by 111 days before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC he dismissed the appeal as inadmissible. A perusal of the record shows that the assessee was very callous in his attitude. He has neither responded to the notice issued u/s 148 nor responded to the notices issued u/s 142 of the Act. Despite reminders by the Assessing Officer, he did not make any submission before the Assessing Officer for which he passed the order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 30.01.2024 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.40,64,827/-. Even before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC also the assessee did not file the appeal in time for which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal being inadmissible. 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 his case before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC by filing the requisite details. It is also his submission that in view of the various decisions, a small delay of 111 days before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have been condoned by him and he should have adjudicated the appeal on merit. 9. 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 justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right 5 ITA No.9/PUN/2025 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. 10. 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.” 11. 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 is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. At the same time, because of the callous attitude of the assessee before the Assessing Officer in not participating in 6 ITA No.9/PUN/2025 assessment proceedings and before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in filing of the appeal with a delay, we levy cost of Rs.5,000/- on the assessee which shall be deposited within one month from the receipt of this order. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 30th April, 2025 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune 7 ITA No.9/PUN/2025 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 30.04.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 30.04.2025 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 "