DILIP KARAMSI THAKKAR,PUNE V. TO WARD-6(3), PUNE

ITA 1672/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves three appeals by the assessee, Dilip Karamsi Thakkar, against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for the assessment years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The appeals were initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to being barred by limitation. The assessee, citing genuine and unavoidable circumstances including unfamiliarity with digital platforms and unawareness of the online service of orders and notices, sought condonation for the delay in filing the appeals. The ITAT found merit in the assessee's reasons for the delay, referencing the principles of natural justice and the need for a fair hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and directed the JAO to re-examine the cases, providing the assessee an opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 848163 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Pune
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2025
• 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: AVIYOGI AMBADKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHISHEK MARSHIYA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147

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 Nos.1671 to 1673/PUN/2025 Assessment Years : 2017-18, 2015-16 and 2016-17 Dilip Karamsi Thakkar, Flat F2 303, Gangadham Phase II, Market Yard, Pune 411037 Maharashtra PAN : AANPT9444L Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeals at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Yrs. 2017-18, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are directed against the separate orders dated 21.05.2025, 23.09.2024 and 21.05.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) arising out of respective Assessment Orders passed u/s. 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. Since issues raised in these three appeals are common, they have been taken up for adjudication and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. As far as ITA No.1672/PUN/2025 is concerned, Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 230 days in filing of the Assessee by : Shri Abhishek Marshiya (through Virtual) Revenue by : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar Date of hearing : 24.03.2026 Date of pronouncement : 27.03.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1671 to 1673/PUN/2025 Dilip Karamsi Thakkar 2 appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the cause of delay and the contents reads as follows: “The appellant respectfully submits this application seeking Condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the CIT order dated 23th September 2024, which was required to be filed on or before 29th November 2025. As a result there is a delay of 230 days Due to genuine and unavoidable circumstances, there has been a delay in filing the present appeal. Furthermore, the appellant is 58 years old and is not well-versed in digital platforms or technology. Being unaware that the orders and notices were being served exclusively through the online portal, the appellant could not access or respond to them within the stipulated time. The appellant wishes to reaffirm that he was genuinely unaware of the passing of the CIT order and acted promptly upon learning of it. The delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, but due to circumstances beyond his control. The appellant is now under considerable hardship due to the ex-parte order at assessment level and CIT rejected the appeal without even giving an opportunity of being heard. I humbly requests to grant an opportunity of being heard before the Hon'ble ITAT, in the interest of justice. Denial of such an opportunity would amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice. In view of the above, the appellant respectfully prays that the delay in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and the appeal may be admitted for hearing on merits. The appellant shall ever remain grateful for your kind consideration and justice.” 4. After hearing both the sides and having gone through the reasons for delay, we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We note that the delay is not intentional and assessee Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1671 to 1673/PUN/2025 Dilip Karamsi Thakkar 3 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 230 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The common fact emerges in all these three appeals is that ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of the case and has dismissed the appeals in limine being barred by limitation. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has requested for restoring the issues to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication affording an opportunity to the assessee. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order of ld.CIT(A) but raised no objection if the issues raised in the appeals are restored. 6. We note that the assessee is an individual and Best Judgment assessments have been framed by the respective Assessing Officers u/s.144 of the Act for A.Yrs. 2017-18, 2015-16 and A.Y. 2016-17 wherein additions u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act for the unexplained money has been since the assessee did not participate in the assessment proceedings ld. Assessing Officer has made the impugned additions. Thereafter assessee preferred appeals before ld.CIT(A) but the same were filed with a delay and the assessee could not satisfy ld.CIT(A) for the ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A) as a Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1671 to 1673/PUN/2025 Dilip Karamsi Thakkar 4 result the delay was not condoned and dismissed the appeals in limine. 7. Before us, assessee has referred to the submissions filed before the lower authorities as well as the contents of the applications for condonation of delay. Assessee also furnished the paper book for the impugned assessment years. We have gone through the facts of the case and the reasons which led to delay in filing of the appeals.The expression “sufficient cause” must be considered liberally in favour of the litigant having approached the Court belatedly so that the dispute could be adjudicated on merits and not on technicalities. At the same time, the delay should neither be intentional nor for taking any undue benefit by the assessee. If the reasons explained by the assessee are bonafide and there is no element of deliberate delay or taking undue advantage in filing the appeal belatedly, then the concept of liberal interpretation must be applied while considering the sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, we find that the delay in filing of appeals before ld.CIT(A) was not intentional as many assessee(s) are dependent upon the Tax Consultant and assessment orders are being sent on the email of the Tax Consultants and the assesse(s) are not aware of passing of the assessment orders causing delay in filing of the appeals. There may be other extraneous reasons which cannot be ruled out. We however taking liberal approach and settled judicial precedents condone the delay in filing of appeals before ld.CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1671 to 1673/PUN/2025 Dilip Karamsi Thakkar 5 9. Since ld.CIT(A) has not decided the issues raised in the three appeals on merits, considering the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issues on merits back to the file ld. JAO for denovo adjudication. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the issue, the issues raised in the instant appeal are being remitted to the file of ld.JAO for necessary adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.JAO in the set aside proceedings shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and consider the documents/ evidences to be filed by the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause, failing which the ld.JAO shall be free to proceed in accordance with law. Findings of the CIT(A)/NFAC are set aside and Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 27th day of March, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 27th March, 2026. Satish Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1671 to 1673/PUN/2025 Dilip Karamsi Thakkar 6 आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “A” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "