DNYANESHWAR EKANATH BALWADKAR,PUNE V. ITO WD- 2(2) PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1770/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Dnyaneshwar Ekanath Balwadkar, an individual agriculturist, who did not file his income tax return for the assessment year 2018-19 despite engaging in financial transactions amounting to Rs.2,00,22,000 during the financial year 2017-18. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) reopened his case under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and assessed his income at Rs.5,74,28,150 due to non-compliance with statutory notices. The appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a 193-day delay, which was not condoned. The assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which found merit in the assessee's arguments for condoning the delay and deciding the case on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788410 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A D KULKARNI
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHIL S PATHAK
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Competent authority
• Section: 147; 148; 144

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.1770/PUN/2025 Assessment year : 2018-19 Dnyaneshwar Ekanath Balwadkar Balewadi Haveli, Pune – 411045 Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Pune PAN: ATHPB4978N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department by : Shri A D Kulkarni Date of hearing : 26-11-2025 Date of pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.06.2025 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 on account of delay in filing of the appeal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual agriculturist and has not filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year. As per information available on record the assessee has entered into certain financial transactions amounting to Rs.2,00,22,000/- during the financial year 2017-18 Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.1770/PUN/2025 relevant to assessment year 2018-19. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was reopened as per provisions of section 147 of the Act after taking approval of the competent authority and notice u/s 148 was issued and served on the assessee. Since the assessee did not comply to the various statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer, therefore, the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 18.03.2024, determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.5,74,28,150/-. 4. Since there was delay in filing of the appeal by 193 days before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in-limine. 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 an agriculturist and is not well acquainted with technology. With much difficulties he could register in the e-filing portal of the department only on 24.09.2024 and thereafter filed the appeal with a delay of 193 days. Relying on various decisions he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merit. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.1770/PUN/2025 7. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.5,74,28,150/- on the ground that the assessee failed to file the return in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act and respond to the subsequent notices to explain his case. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine and has not decided the appeal on merit. It is an admitted fact that due to the delay in filing of the appeal by 193 days, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC did not condone the delay on the ground that the assessee could not explain any reasonable cause for such delay in filing of the appeal. 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 by filing the requisite details before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. It is also his submission that in view of various decisions, a small delay of 193 days in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should have been condoned by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and he should have adjudicated the appeal on merit. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.1770/PUN/2025 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 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 Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.1770/PUN/2025 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. 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 28th November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 28th November, 2025 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.1770/PUN/2025 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 27.11.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 28.11.2025 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 Printed from counselvise.com "