MR. BALU SINNAPPA WAGHMODE,VATFALI NANDIWALE VASTI V. ITO WARD 1(1), SOLAPUR

ITA 2804/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Balu Sinnappa Waghmode, the appellant, contesting an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2015-16, which was passed under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal was initially dismissed by the CIT(A) due to alleged defects in the filing, including the absence of Form No.35 and other related documents. However, the Tribunal found that the necessary documents had indeed been e-filed but were not visible on the CIT(A)'s e-portal. The Tribunal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause and admitted the appeal for adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831872 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2025
• 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 VIRTUAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AAKASH PARAKH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; 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.2804/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Balu Sinnappa Waghmode, At Vaftali Nandiwale Vasti, Post Kondbhavi, Akluj, Tal Malshiras, Dist. Solapur Maharashtra – 413101 PAN : ACPW8121A Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Solapur Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2015-16 is directed against the order dated 24.07.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 04.03.2024 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Act. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 56 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed affidavit for condonation of delay giving the reasons. Precisely, the main reason for the delay is that the income tax matters are being looked after by the assessee’s father. He was seriously ill and unfortunately passed away on 20.06.2025. Assessee came to know of passing of the order only when received a message on his mobile regarding penalty proceedings. In the process, the aforesaid delay of 56 days has occurred. Assessee by : Shri Aakash Parakh Revenue by : Shri Shashank Ojha (virtual) Date of hearing : 14.01.2026 Date of pronouncement : 22 .01.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2804/PUN/2025 Balu Sinnappa Waghmode 2 3. After hearing both the sides and considering the averments made by the assessee in the affidavit 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 56 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there are certain clerical mistakes in Form No.36 and therefore revised Form No.36 has been placed before this Tribunal. He also submitted that there was delay in filing appeal before ld.CIT(A) but inspite of having filed all the documents ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal treating it as defective for not furnishing Form No.35 and other related documents. He made reference to Form No.35 filed before ld.CIT(A) and submitted that various details have been filed along with Form No.35 and ld.CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay and not dealing with merits of the case. He therefore requested for granting one more opportunity to the assessee to go before ld.CIT(A) to plead its grounds of appeal for necessary adjudication of the issues on merit. Ld. Departmental Representation while supporting the order of ld.CIT(A) raised no objection to the request made by ld. Counsel for the assessee. 5. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. I observe that the assessee is an individual and did not file regular return of income. Based on the information about transaction of purchase and sale of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2804/PUN/2025 Balu Sinnappa Waghmode 3 immovable property, notice u/s.148 of the Act duly served upon the assessee. However, on the subsequent dates, assessee failed to appear as a result best judgment assessment completed after making addition of ₹37,69,209. Income assessed at ₹37,69,209. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) and filed Form No.35 electronically on 10.03.2024. Assessment order is dated 04.03.2024. Necessary enclosures have been attached before ld.CIT(A) along with Form No.35 e-filed. However, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal treating as defective observing as follows : “In connection with the appeal filed in the case of Balu Sinnappa Waghmode for AY 2015-16 against the order u/s 147, it is seen that the appeal filed is defective for the following reasons: 1. Form 35 is not filed 2. Assessment order/demand notice/computation sheet is not filed 3. Grounds of appeal are not filed 4. Statement of Facts are not filed/ 5. Petition for Condonation of delay is not filed 6. Taxes on returned income not paid 7. Appeal fees not paid/Challan not filed.. Hence, you are requested to rectify the above defect(s) within 10 days of receipt of this letter, failing which your appeal will be treated as invalid and will not be admitted. 3. However, it is found that the appellant has neither responded to the defect memo nor furnished any documents required till date. Under the above circumstances, I am constrained to dismiss the appeal as defective. 4. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Dismissed.” 6. I find that the above finding of ld.CIT(A) is incorrect because the assessee has e-filed the appeal and all documents Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2804/PUN/2025 Balu Sinnappa Waghmode 4 stands uploaded. Apparently, it seems that the documents uploaded by the assessee were not appearing on the e-portal window available with the ld.CIT(A) under the National Faceless Appeal Centre. Under these given facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that assessee deserves fair opportunity of pleading its case on the grounds of appeal raised before ld.CIT(A). In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the case, the issues raised in the instant appeal are remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) shall decide the issues raised in Form No.35 in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 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 effective grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 22nd day of January, 2026. Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 22nd January, 2026. Satish Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2804/PUN/2025 Balu Sinnappa Waghmode 5 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 "