MAHESH KRISHNARAO DHAVAN,PUNE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(1), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 2977/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mahesh Krishnarao Dhavan, the appellant, who contested the order of the Income Tax Officer regarding unexplained cash deposits amounting to 29,51,000 in various bank accounts, which were added to his income for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The appellant's initial appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) due to non-prosecution as the appellant failed to appear on multiple scheduled dates, some of which coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. The appellant explained the delay in filing the appeal with the Tribunal, attributing it to reliance on a tax consultant and lack of access to digital communication tools. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., found the delay to be due to reasonable cause and admitted the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 828624 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Pune
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHASHANK OJHA
• Keywords: 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.2977/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mahesh Krishnarao Dhavan, Flat No.102, A-Building, Aishwarya Residency, Kaspate Waste, Wakad, Pune 411057, Maharashtra PAN : ADRPD8395F Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(2), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 28.02.2024 of Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Ludhiana passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 19.12.2018 passed u/s.143(3) of the Act. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 582 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay and relevant contents are reproduced below: “2. That the appellant submits that he does not regularly access his email ID and also does not have access to the Income Tax website. 3. Hence, the appellant was dependent upon the tax consultant for the appeal and other Taxation works. That when our tax consultant verified the Income Tax Portal, it came to the knowledge of our tax consultant that the appellate order has been passed. Accordingly, our Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Shashank Ojha Date of hearing : 12.01.2026 Date of pronouncement : 13.01.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2977/PUN/2025 Mahesh Krishnarao Dhavan 2 tax consultant has advised us to file appeal with ITAT, Pune. The aforesaid process resulted in delay in filling appeal with ITAT. 4. Accordingly this Affidavit is made to explain delay of 582 days in filling appeal with ITAT, Pune, with a humble request to condone the delay and accept the appeal.” 3. After hearing ld. Departmental Representative and considering the affidavit filed by the assessee stating the reasons which led to delay and also placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107) I find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeal within the time limit specified under the Act. I therefore condone the delay of 582 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. However, considering the fact that assessee failed to make any compliance before ld.CIT(A) and with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and material available on record I proceed to adjudicate the appeal. Assessee has raised four grounds of appeal. I will first take up the Ground No.1 which reads as under : “1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. The appellant submits that he does not regularly access his email ID and also does not have access to the Income Tax website. Therefore, the appellate order passed may please be deleted. 5. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of ld.CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2977/PUN/2025 Mahesh Krishnarao Dhavan 3 6. I have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before me. I observe that the assessee is an individual and return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 furnished on 18.03.2017 declaring income of ₹2,85,460. After the case being selected for scrutiny, assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act concluded on 19.2.2018 by the ld. Assessing Officer making addition of ₹29,51,000 towards unexplained cash deposits in various bank accounts held by the assessee. Income assessed at ₹32,36,460. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but on the dates of hearing fixed through notices 03.02.2021, 23.07.2021, 30.01.2024 and 07.02.2024 there was no compliance and ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine. I observe that two of the dates were falling during covid-19 pandemic restrictions period prevailed across the India. Assessee is engaged in the service as Police Inspector. In the statement of facts, assessee has made the submissions explaining the source of alleged cash deposit including the cash withdrawals made from time to time and also the bank statement reflecting the money received from Shri Kuldeep Jadhav and Mrs. Shraddha Dhavan on sale of car and the confirmations of Mrs. Shraddha Dhavan were also filed before the Assessing Officer. I note that couple of notices through e- mail were sent during covd-19 pandemic period and further assessees are solely dependent upon the tax consultants in the faceless regime are unaware about the notices and their compliance. 7. Under the given facts and circumstances, I deem it appropriate to give one more opportunity to the assessee to go before ld.CIT(A) and adduce evidences in support of its grounds of appeal. Needless to say that ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2977/PUN/2025 Mahesh Krishnarao Dhavan 4 opportunity to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. 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 Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Since by way of Ground No.1, the issues are remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A) dealing with remaining grounds would be merely academic in nature. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 13th day of January, 2026. Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 13th January, 2026. Satish 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 "