DYANSAWANDHANI GRAMIN BIGARSHATI SAHAKARI PATASANSHATA MARAYDIT,SHIRWAL, KHANDALA, SATARA, MAHARASHTRA V. ASSESSING OFFICER WARD 4 SATARA, AAYKAR BHAWAN, MANJUNATH MANOR, PAWAI NAKA, SATARA

ITA 2914/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Dyansawandhani Gramin Bigarshati Sahakari Patasanshata Maryadit, a cooperative society, which appealed against the order of the NFAC concerning the Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to a delay of approximately 30 months, which was not condoned. The delay was attributed to the death of the assessee's consultant and the COVID-19 pandemic. The ITAT found merit in the assessee's reasons for the delay, referencing several judicial precedents that favor adjudication on merits over technical dismissals. Consequently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s decision and directed a fresh examination of the case on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831303 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr, Concord of India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi, Collector of Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHASHANK OJHA VIRTUAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJKUMAR DOSHI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2914/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Dyansawandhani Gramin Bigarshati Sahakari Patasanshata Maryadit, Shirwal Khandala, Satara 412 801, Maharashtra PAN : AAAD9992P Vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-4, Satara Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 12.11.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 12.03.2021 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act. 2. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing the appeal before him and dismissed the appeal in limine without considering that the case of the assessee’s case was dealt by the consultant Late Mr. M.K. Kulkarni. However due to the death of Mr. M.K. Kulkarni on 01.01.2024 assessee was not aware about the status of the proceedings, the delay has occurred. Assessee by : Shri Rajkumar Doshi Revenue by : Shri Shashank Ojha (virtual) Date of hearing : 14.01.2026 Date of pronouncement : 20.01.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2914/PUN/2025 Dyansawandhani Gramin Bigarshati Sahakari Patasanshata Maryadit, 2 3. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of ld.CIT(A). 4. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the records placed before me. I note that the assessee is a Cooperative society and return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 furnished on 04.10.2018 declaring Nil income. Case selected for scrutiny for examining the “Deduction from Total income under Chapter VIA. Certain details were fled. However, ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied with regard to the claim of deduction u/s.80P of the Act for the interest income earned from the Cooperative Banks and made the addition thereof treating it as ‘income from other sources’. Assessment order framed on 12.03.2021. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A), however, the appeal before ld.CIT(A) has been filed on 25.11.2024 with a delay of about 30 months. Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine being barred by limitation and has not dealt with merits of the case. 5. The moot point is as to whether such a huge delay of more than two years deserves to be condoned. At this stage, it is relevant to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom) holding that none should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed the filing of appeal. In that case, delay of 2984 days crept in due to improper legal advice. Relying on Concord of India Ins. Co. Limited VS Nirmala Devi (1979) 118 ITR 507 (SC), the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court condoned the delay. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2914/PUN/2025 Dyansawandhani Gramin Bigarshati Sahakari Patasanshata Maryadit, 3 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, 167 ITR 471 (SC) 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. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT, 389 ITR 250 (Bom.) held that in the matter of condonation of delay an overall view in the larger interest of justice has to be taken. None should be deprived of an adjudication on merits unless the Court of law or the Tribunal/Appellate Authority finds that the litigant has deliberately and intentionally delayed filing of the appeal, that he is careless, negligent and his conduct is lacking in bonafides. 7. Turning to the facts of the present case, the impugned order by the NFAC was passed on 12.03.2021. The assessee filed the appeal on 25.11.2024. I note that the delay of 30 months has occurred in filing of the appeal before ld.CT(A) on two grounds firstly due to covid-19 pandemic restrictions prevailed across the country and the period from 18.12.2021 till 31.05.2022 is covered by the covid-19 pandemic prevailed all over the country. Excluding the covid-19 period, the delay is about two years. Second reason is due to the death of Tax Consultant Mr. M.K. Kulkarni on 01.01.2024 and the office files were returned to the assessee at a much later date, i.e.in the month of November, 2024. I find that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A). Applying the principles enunciated in the decisions referred to hereinabove, in the facts of the present case, I deem it fit to condone the delay in filing the appeal before ld.CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2914/PUN/2025 Dyansawandhani Gramin Bigarshati Sahakari Patasanshata Maryadit, 4 8. Since ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) by virtue of judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ‘Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT’ [2025, 171 taxmann.com 92 (Del)], wherein their Hon’ble Lordship vide para 13 have categorically held that, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to proceed to decide the ground which did not arise from the impugned order passed by first appellate authority, irrespective of such ground was raised in first appeal or not. 9. Under these given facts and circumstances the issues raised in the instant appeal are remitted back to the file of ld.CT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 20th day of January, 2026. Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 20th January, 2026. Satish Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2914/PUN/2025 Dyansawandhani Gramin Bigarshati Sahakari Patasanshata Maryadit, 5 आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com "