KISHOR GAJANAN PATIL,PUNE V. ITO WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD

ITA 1076/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Kishor Gajanan Patil, the appellant, who contested the dismissal of his appeal by the CIT(A) / NFAC due to a 142-day delay in filing. The original assessment for the year 2015-16 was completed under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining the assessee's income at Rs.62,71,200. The assessee argued that the delay was due to his lack of awareness of a transaction involving his wife's property, which was sold and the proceeds deposited in a joint account. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, citing precedents that prioritize substantial justice and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remanding the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785960 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC), Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHOR B PHADKE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1)

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.1076/PUN/2025 Assessment year : 2015-16 Kishor Gajanan Patil Flat No.301, C Wing, Ganga Avenue, NIBM S.O., Yewalewadi, Pune – 411048 Vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad PAN: AHEPP7091B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 20-08-2025 Date of pronouncement : 27-10-2025 O R D E R PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.02.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2015-16. 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 dismissing the appeal due to delay in filing of the appeal by 142 days. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year. An order u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was passed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer on 07.04.2022 and notice u/s 148 of the Act Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.1076/PUN/2025 was issued on 07.04.2022. Since the assessee did not make any compliance to the various statutory notices issued including the notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 23.11.2023 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.62,71,200/-. 4. Since there was a delay in filing of the appeal by 142 days, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal treating the same as not maintainable. 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 at the outset submitted that the assessee is a salaried employee. His wife had received certain property being ownership residential premises at Gajanan Plaza, Ward No.74, Takli Seem, Nagpur in the year 2004 which was sold by her on 23.01.2014 to Mukesh Himatlal Thakar for a consideration of Rs.55,00,000/- as per agreement dated 23.01.2014. The above amount was deposited in the bank account which was jointly held with her husband i.e. the assessee in the instant case. He submitted that since the assessee was neither a party to the sale nor a party to the purchase, therefore, he was not aware of the transaction. Further, due to frequent travel on account of job he could not file his original return in time. Relying on various decisions he submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal should have been condoned by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and he should have decided the appeal on merit. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.1076/PUN/2025 7. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. It is an admitted fact that due to delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC by 142 days, he dismissed the same as not maintainable. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the entire addition is not maintainable since the bank deposits in question are out of sale proceeds of the property belonging to the spouse of the assessee and bank account is a joint bank account. It is also his submission that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details. 9. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) 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. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.1076/PUN/2025 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. In the light of the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited (supra), we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to make his submissions, if any, 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 27th October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (ASTHA CHANDRA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 27th October, 2025 GCVSR Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.1076/PUN/2025 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 24.10.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 27.10.2025 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 "