LATA GULAB RATNANI L/H OF LATE GULAB RATNANI,PUNE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(3), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 363/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Lata Gulab Ratnani, the legal heir of the late Gulab Ratnani, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The primary contention was the CIT(A)'s refusal to condone a 136-day delay in filing the appeal, which was attributed to the time taken to obtain a legal heirship certificate. The Tribunal found the delay reasonable and supported by precedents that advocate a liberal approach towards condonation of delays in legal proceedings. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the assessment was made in the name of a deceased person, which is considered non-est and liable to be quashed, further complicating the legal proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775144 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P. MURKUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: ARRCHENA SHETTY
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.363/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year 2013-2014) Lata Gulab Ratnani L/H of late Gulab Ratnani, S.No.11/1B, Karan Kunj, Sukhwani Paradise, Pimpri, Maharashtra. PAN : ABZPR 4758 A vs. ITO, Ward-8(3), Pune. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Mrs. Arrchena Shetty, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde, DR Date of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03.09.2025 ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, AM: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) /NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated 16/12/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised 09 grounds of appeal. We shall first take up ground No.1 through which it has been contended that Ld.CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 136 days in filing of the appeal and further Ld.CIT(A) erred in Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA.No.363/PUN./2025 not considering the reasonable cause giving rise to the said appeal which arised on account of delay in uploading of the legal heirship certificate. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and the assessment has been completed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 31/03/2022 wherein against the nil income, addition u/s. 69A of the Act at Rs. 1,71,81,420/- has been made and income assessed at Rs. 1,71,81,420/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), but the appeal was filed with delay of 136 days. The assessee submitted the reasons for the said delay, but Ld.CIT(A) was not satisfied and dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay holding it to be unreasonable, and that the assessee failed to satisfactory explain the cause of delay. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay arose because assessee took time to obtain legal heirship certificate in the name of deceased-appellant. She stated that delay deserves to be condoned and the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have dealt with the case on merits. Apart from merits of the case, she submitted that assessment has been completed in the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA.No.363/PUN./2025 name of the deceased person and the information about the death of the assessee was in the knowledge of the Ld.AO. The Ld.AO framed the assessment for A.Y. 2011-12 in the name of Karan Gulab, who is the legal heir of the assessee and the Ld.AO was aware that the assessee has expired on 16/10/2011. Reliance placed on plethora of decisions in support of the contention that the assessment completed in the name of deceased person is non-est and liable to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and further stated that even if the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) is condoned, then also the issues on merits and other legal issues deserve to be restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Apropos ground No.1 raised by the assessee, we notice that the same is directed against the order of Ld.CIT(A) and the learned counsel for the assessee has contended that Ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay of 136 days in filing of the appeal. We observe that after passing of the assessment order on 31/03/2022, the appeal has been filed before the Ld.CIT(A) on 14/09/2022. During the course of appellate proceedings, it was stated before the Ld.CIT(A) that due to technical reasons, assessee could not file the Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA.No.363/PUN./2025 appeal immediately after receiving of the assessment order, because for filing of the appeal, the assessee was required to obtain legal heirship certificate in the name of the deceased appellant and the process of registering the deceased- appellant’s wife as his legal heir took time. We find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee as well as the reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal in time. It has been time and again held by the Hon'ble Courts that liberal and justice oriented approach should be taken and delay should be condoned unless the delay is found to be intentional. We find support from the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107] and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382). In the light of the above judgments and also considering the reasons giving rise to delay in filing of appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), we hereby condone the delay of 136 days in filing of appeal before Ld.CIT(A). 9. So far as the other grounds of appeal including legal issues and merits of the case, before the Ld.CIT(A) has made detailed submissions, however considering the fact that Ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with the issues on merits as well as other legal grounds, in the interest of justice and being fair to both the sides, the issues deserve to be restored to the file of Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA.No.363/PUN./2025 Ld.CIT(A). The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay) [2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bom.) has held that Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits, even in an ex-parte order. We hereby direct the Ld.CIT(A) to adjudicate all the issues raised legal grounds as well as merits of the case including the issues raised challenging the validity of the assessment proceedings by way of passing speaking order after duly considering the details filed by the assessee as well as settled judicial precedents. Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall grant fair hearing of opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [VINAY BHAMORE] [MANISH BORAD] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune, Dated 03rd September, 2025 vr/- Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA.No.363/PUN./2025 Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Pune concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. By Order //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "