NANDINIDEVI VIJAYSINH MOHITE PATIL,SOLAPUR V. CIT (A), NFAC, DELHI

ITA 1623/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by Arjunsinh Madansinh Mohite Patil and Nandinidevi Vijaysinh Mohite Patil against the orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which were based on assessment orders for the years 2014-15 to 2017-18. The appeals were initially dismissed in limine by the CIT(A) due to the non-appearance of the assessees. The Tribunal noted that the assessees did not receive proper communication regarding the hearings, as notices were sent to old email IDs. Acknowledging this as a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeals, the Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 784963 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMOL KHAIRNAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.1620 to 1622 and 1624/PUN/2025 Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 Arjunsinh Madansinh Mohite Patil, Shankar Nagar Solapur, Yashawantnagar S.O., Solapur Maharashtra - 413118 PAN : AIIPM0185A Vs. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1623/PUN/2025 Assessment Years : 2015-16 Nandinidevi Vijaysinh Mohite Patil, Shivratna Building, Akluj, Malshiras, Solapur 413 101 Maharashtra PAN : AAZPM7704J Vs. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH : In the captioned appeals ITA Nos. 1620 to 1622 & 1624/PUN/2025 at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Yrs. 2014-15 to A.Y. 2017-18 are directed against the separate orders dated 13.09.2024 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre emanating out of respective Assessment Orders dated 18.05.2023, 10.05.2023, 02.05.2023 and 29.05.2023 Appellant(s) by : None Respondent by : Shri Amol Khairnar Date of hearing : 10.11.2025 Date of pronouncement : 12.11.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1620 to 1624/PUN/2025 Arjunsinh Madansinh Mohite Patil Nandinidevi Vijaysinh Mohite Patil 2 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. ITA No. 1623/PUN/2025 at the instance of another assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 is directed against the order dated 21.01.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre emanating out of Assessment Order dated 25.05.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Registry has informed that these appeals filed by different but connected assessee(s) are time barred by limitation in presenting the appeals before this Tribunal. There is delay of 210 days in respect of the appeals filed by Arjunsinh Madansinh Mohite Patil and there is delay of 98 days in respect of appeal filed by Nandinidevi Vijaysinh Mohite Patil. These assessee(s) have filed affidavits explaining the delay. Main reason for the delay is that the notices for communication were sent on the old email ids and therefore the assessee(s) have not filed any reply which resulted in passing of exparte orders. 4. On considering the above reason, we are satisfied that ‘reasonable cause’ prevented the assessee(s) to file the appeals within the stipulated time. We note that the delay is not intentional and assessee(s) would not have gained from filing the appeals with a delay. We therefore adopting a justice oriented approach and in light of judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the respective Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1620 to 1624/PUN/2025 Arjunsinh Madansinh Mohite Patil Nandinidevi Vijaysinh Mohite Patil 3 delay in filing of the instant appeals by both the assessee(s) before this Tribunal and admit the appeals for adjudication. 5. When the case called for none appeared on behalf of the assessee(s) despite due service of notice of hearing. However, with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and on perusal of the impugned orders notice that the orders have been passed exparte qua assessee(s) as the assessee(s) failed to appear on the dates fixed for hearing by ld.CIT(A) as a result of which ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee(s) appeals in limine without dealing with merits of the case. 6. Ld. Departmental Representative raised no objection if the issues raised in the instant appeals by the assessee(s) are restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication on merits. 7. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. We note that in the given set of appeals the assessee(s) have filed appeals before ld.CIT(A) against the additions made by ld. Assessing Officer for the respective assessment years. A common fact is that the assessee(s) have not responded to the notices of hearing issued by ld.CIT(A) and therefore no details could be filed in support of grounds of appeal raised. We also observe that in some cases ld.CIT(A) has mainly dismissed the appeals in limine without dealing with merits of the case as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. 8. Under these given facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to grant one more opportunity to the assessee(s) Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.1620 to 1624/PUN/2025 Arjunsinh Madansinh Mohite Patil Nandinidevi Vijaysinh Mohite Patil 4 under consideration. In view thereof, without dwelling into merits of the case, all the issues raised in the instant appeals are restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that in the set aside proceedings ld.CIT(A) shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee(s). Assessee(s) are also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned orders are set aside and effective grounds raised by the assessee(s) for all the assessment years under appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, all the appeals filed by the two assessee(s) are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 12th day of November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 12th November, 2025. 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, “A” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "