MITHLESH ASHOK THUKRAL,PUNE V. ITO WARD 13(4), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 840/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mithlesh Ashok Thukral, the appellant, who filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A), Jodhpur, which dismissed his appeal for not condoning a delay of 249 days in filing. The original dispute arose from an assessment order under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, where the foreign tax credit was not allowed to the extent of Rs.9,63,373 in respect of foreign income. The ITAT found that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and was due to a bona fide belief that the previous tax consultant would handle the necessary compliances. The ITAT emphasized the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations, referencing decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774645 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle VI(3), Chennai [2023] 153 faxmann.com 354 (Madras), 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: SUHAS BORA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Bonafide belief

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.840/PUN/2025 Assessment year : 2023-24 Mithlesh Ashok Thukral A-601, Parpasaakshi, Shivsai Lane, Near Lotus Hospital, Pimple Saudagar, Pune – 411027 Vs. ITO, Ward 13(4), Pune PAN: ADQPT3089D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Suhas Bora Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 21-08-2025 Date of pronouncement : 02-09-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.03.2025 of the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A), Jodhpur relating to assessment year 2023-24. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal by 249 days and thereby dismissing the same. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year on 29.07.2023 declaring total Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.840/PUN/2025 income of Rs.1,26,83,380/-. The Assessing Officer / CPC passed the order on 16.04.2024 u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) assessing the total income at Rs.1,26,83,380/-. In the said intimation, the foreign tax credit was not allowed to the extent of Rs.9,63,373/- in respect of the foreign income. The date of service of order as per Form 35 is 16.04.2024. However, the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) on 22.02.2025. The assessee filed an application for condonation of delay. However, the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal on the ground that there was no sufficient cause for the delay in filing of the appeal by recording as under: “Decision on Condonation of Delay:- The facts of the case and the grounds raised by the appellant have been considered carefully. It is noticed that there is a delay in filing of appeal. The appeal is to be filed within 30 days of the date of the service of the order. During the appellate proceedings, it is found from the Form No.35 that the appellant filed the present appeal on 22.02.2025 whereas the date of order u/s 143(1) was on 16.04.2024 and as per Form No.35, the date of service of order was 16.014.2024. As per the dates given in Form 35, it appears that the appeal is filed beyond the prescribed due date. The reasons stated by the appellant have been perused but are not found to be tenable as the appellant has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause or any other hardship for delay in filing of the present appeal and hence, the same cannot be condoned. The above view has also been taken by Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Company Circle VI(3), Chennai [2023] 153 faxmann.com 354 (Madras) in a recent decision. Thus, the appeal filed by appellant is not maintainable as the same is filed beyond the time limit permitted u/s 249 of the IT Act for filing of appeal and there is no sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal, which can be condoned. Accordingly, the appeal of the appellant is treated as dismissed u/s. 250 r.w.s. 251 of the Act without considering the merits of the appeal filed. 4. In the end, the present appeal is dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.840/PUN/2025 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset drew the attention of the Bench to the contents of the condonation application filed before the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) which read as under: “Sub: Application for seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal May it please Your Honour, 1. This has a reference to the appeal preferred by me against the order u/sec. 143(1) of the Act for AY 2023-24 dated 16.04.2024 2. I received the copy of the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act on 16.04.2024 and therefore the appeal should have been filed by 16.05.2024, I have filed the appeal on 22.02.2025. That there is delay in filling the appeal by 283 days. 3. On receiving the copy of the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act I informed my previous consultant for taking further course of action against the said order and necessary compliance as I was totally dependent on him and was under bonafide belief that he will do all the necessary compliances. 4. I am a software engineer and being a software engineer I am not very well versed with the procedure and notices issued by the Income Tax Department, and I totally relied on my tax consultant. 5. On receipt of the outstanding demand notice from the department I came to know that appeal against the intimation order u/s 143[1] of the Act was not filed. Thereafter, I consulted another Senior Chartered Accountant in the second week of February 2025 with all the relevant papers and he explained me all the facts and the time limit for filling an appeal against the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly, he advised me to file an appeal against the said order before Hon'ble CIT(A) National faceless Appeal Center, Delhi. 6. As instructed by the senior consultant, I immediately took steps to file an appeal before CIT(A) National faceless Appeal Center, Delhi. 7. Thus, filing of appeal against the said order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act got delayed unintentionally. 8. In view of the above, I submit that there was a reasonable cause in not preferring the appeal in time before the Hon'ble CIT(A) and hence, I request that the delay of 283 days may please be condoned which is unintentional and admit the appeal filed by me. 9. I would be grateful if the above request is accepted.” Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.840/PUN/2025 6. Relying on various decisions he submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal should have been condoned and the appeal should have been heard on merit. He accordingly submitted that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit. 7. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO / CPC and the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. It is an admitted fact that due to delay in filing of the appeal by 249 days the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) did not condone the delay on the ground that there is no sufficient cause for delay in filing of the appeal which can be condoned. He accordingly did not admit the appeal and therefore dismissed the same. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the delay was not intentional and was a bonafide one. It is also his submission that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before the Ld. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) against the denial of foreign tax credit by the CPC. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.840/PUN/2025 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. 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. Addl CIT(A) / JCIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merit after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.840/PUN/2025 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 2nd September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 2nd September, 2025 GCVSR 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 28.08.2025 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 01.09.2025 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 "