GAURI SHIVAJIRAO JADHAV,PUNE V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), PUNE

ITA 1646/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Gauri Shivajirao Jadhav, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, which had dismissed her appeal due to a delay of 129 days in filing without condoning the delay. The original assessment was made ex-parte under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, where the Assessing Officer added Rs. 95,19,900 as income from the sale of immovable property, as the assessee had not filed her return of income for the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in not considering the merits of the case and solely focusing on the procedural delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 826627 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: UODOL RAJ SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY RANDER
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Cost of acquisition; Valuation report; Value adopted by valuation officer
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1646/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gauri Shivajirao Jadhav, Seva, 678, Nere Nr. IIMS College, Jambe Mulshi, Pune- 411033. PAN : BDPPJ8217B Vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.01.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. There is delay in filing of the present appeal. We are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of delay duly supported by an affidavit that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit. After hearing Ld. DR, we condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. Assessee by : Shri Ajay Rander Revenue by : Shri Uodol Raj Singh Date of hearing : 13.11.2025 Date of pronouncement : 05.01.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1646/PUN/2025 2 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal of the appellant merely due to absence of sufficient cause in filing of the appeal, without going into the merits of the addition involved? 2. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Assessing Officer erred in taxing the total consideration without allowing deduction on account of cost of acquisition? 3. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) erred in not considering that by submission of Valuation Report in support of the agreement value of the transaction, the appellant had disputed that Stamp Duty Value and there was a case for making reference to Valuation Officer for determining the Fair Market Value of the Property? 4. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the case of the appellant was a case fit for set aside of the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer under proviso to Sec 251(a) of the Income Tax Act.” 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed her return of income for the period under consideration. As per the information available with the Department the assessee has sold immovable property for an amount of Rs.95,19,900/- during the period under consideration. Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened and notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued after following due procedure. Subsequently, statutory notices u/s 142(1) of the IT Act and SCN u/s 144 of the IT Act were issued to the assessee. The assessee did not make any compliance in response to the above notices, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1646/PUN/2025 3 therefore, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 06.03.2023 completed the assessment ex-parte u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act and determined total income at Rs.95,19,900/- as against no return filed by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.95,19,900/- on account of sale of immovable property. 5. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was preferred before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the appeal was furnished belatedly i.e. with the delay of 129 days Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. It is the sole request of the assessee that if one final opportunity is provided to the assessee she is in a position to substantiate her case before the Assessing Officer. In this regard, we find that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay and without going into merits of the case. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and remand the matter back to the file of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1646/PUN/2025 4 Assessing Officer with a direction to pass assessment order afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer in this regard and to produce relevant documents, explanation and evidences, if any, to substantiate her case without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 05th day of January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 05th January, 2026. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr.CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "