DHANANJAY VASANTRAO DESHMUKH (HUF),AURANGABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5), AURANGABAD

ITA 2344/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Dhananjay Vasantrao Deshmukh (HUF) against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which were initially dismissed due to delays in filing. The appeals pertained to a quantum addition of 4,08,12,900 under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and a penalty of 31,52,796 under section 271AAC(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2019-2020. The Tribunal found the delays in filing the appeals to be unintentional, attributed to erroneous advice from the assessee's tax consultant, and thus condoned the delays. The Tribunal did not address the merits of the case but restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination and decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833792 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2025
• 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: R.Y. BALAWADE
• Assessee Lawyers: RAMESH N THETE VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.2343 & 2344/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year : 2019-2020) Dhananjay Vasantrao Deshmukh (HUF), Flat No. 10, Nabhraj Sunflower Aparements, Shahnoor Wadi, Darga Road, Dist. Chh. Sambhajinagar PAN : AAIHD 4555 K vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ramesh N Thete (virtual) For Revenue : Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 29.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 02.02.2026 ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM These appeals at the instance of the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] evenly dated 30/09/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 24.09.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act (ITA No. 2344/PUN/2025) and penalty order dated 21.01.2022 passed Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA.Nos.2343 & 2344/PUN./2025 (Dhananjay Vasantrao Deshmukh (HUF)) u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act (ITA No. 2343/PUN/2025) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. 2. The grievance of the assessee in ITA No. 2344/PUN/2025 is against the quantum addition of ₹ 4,08,12,900/- u/s. 69A of the Act and in ITA No. 2343/PUN/2025, the assessee‟s grievance is against levy of penalty u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act at ₹ 31,52,796/-. 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that appeals filed before the Ld.CIT(A) were barred by limitation by 936 days in the quantum appeal and 817 days in penalty appeal. Referring to the reasons for delay mentioned in affidavit filed before the Ld.CIT(A) placed at page No. 4 to 9 of the impugned order in ITA No. 2344/PUN/2025, he submitted that delay is not intentional and the assessee is wholly dependent upon the Tax Consultant-Mr. Pradip Mule who advised the assessee to file appeal before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court against the order of Ld.AO and due to this wrong advice, delay has occurred. He only prayed that delay in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) in both the instant appeals may please be condoned and fresh opportunity may be granted to the assessee to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication of the issues raised in the instant two appeals. 4. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA.Nos.2343 & 2344/PUN./2025 (Dhananjay Vasantrao Deshmukh (HUF)) 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We notice that assessee, who is a HUF had filed its return of income on 31.08.2019 declaring NIL income. Case selected for complete scrutiny for the issue of „income from other sources‟ and refund claimed. During the assessment proceedings carried out, after validly serving notices, Ld.AO observed that assessee has received compensation for land acquisition from Government at ₹2,42,55,730/-. Subsequently, other informations were also collected by the Assessing Officer and he observed from 7/12 extract that the land on which compensation has been received in the names of Annasaheb Vasantrao Deshmukh, Asharam Bapurao Kumawat, Sanjeevan Vasantrao Deshmukh and nowhere name of the assessee i.e. Dhananjay Vasantrao Deshmukh is found. Further, on examining the details, Ld.AO found that the assessee also received an amount of ₹ 18,396,858/- during the year which is allegedly claimed to be interest on delayed compensation. Ld.AO, Accordingly, completed the assessment making the addition of ₹4,08,12,900/- and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC(1) of the Act and finally levied penalty ₹ 31,52,796/- . 6. Aggrieved with the quantum addition as well as levy of penalty, assessee preferred separate appeals before the Ld.CIT(A), but there was a delay of 935 days and 817 days in filing the appeals. In spite of having provided reasons for the Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA.Nos.2343 & 2344/PUN./2025 (Dhananjay Vasantrao Deshmukh (HUF)) delay, Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeals in limine and did not adjudicate the issues on merits. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee has taken us through the contents of the affidavit filed before the Ld.CIT(A) providing reasons giving rise to the delay in filing of the appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). We, on going through the same, find that the delay is not intentional and the assessee had not gained from delay in filing the appeal and therefore, in the larger interest of justice and also taking guidance from the judgments 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), hereby condone the delay of 936 days and 816 days in filing the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A). 7. So far as the merits of the cases are concerned, since Ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with the same on merits, we therefore, deem it appropriate to restore all the issues raised in ITA Nos. 2343 & 2344/PUN/2025 to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication and to pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act after considering the submissions of the assessee as well as details and other evidences, if any, filed by the assessee under Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1964 and call for remand report from Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). Needless to mention that assessee is to update latest email id Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA.Nos.2343 & 2344/PUN./2025 (Dhananjay Vasantrao Deshmukh (HUF)) and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned orders are set aside and effective grounds of appeals raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02.02.2026 Sd/- Sd/- [VINAY BHAMORE] [MANISH BORAD] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune, Dated 02nd February, 2026 vr/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. PCIT concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. By Order //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "