PARIKSHIT RAMESH FUKE,NAGPUR V. ITO WARD 1(2) NAGPUR , NAGPUR

ITA 393/NAG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Parikshit Ramesh Fuke against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, which dismissed his appeal on the grounds of delay in filing. The delay was attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic, during which the assessee was unable to comply with procedural requirements due to a nationwide lockdown. The Tribunal considered the Supreme Court's directives that extended the limitation period for judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings during the pandemic. The Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the assessing officer, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839709 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURJIT KUMAR SAHA
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHAVIR ATAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “NAGPUR” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 393/NAG/2025 (AY : 2018-19) (Physical hearing) Parikshit Ramesh Fuke, 11, Fuke Patil Marg, Ambazari Road, Nagpur Urban, Maharashtra – 440033. [PAN: AABPF6490J] Vs ITO, Ward-1(2), BSNL RTTC Building, Balaji Mandir Road, Seminary Hills, Nagpur, Nagpur, Mharashtra. PIN:440033. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Mahavir Atal, CA Revenue by Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR Date of hearing 26.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 26.02.2026 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 22.04.2025 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal; “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant on 25 November 2021 on the basis of condonation of delay when the delay was squarely covered by the Supreme Court directives with respect to the limitation period for judicial and quasi judicial proceedings during the Cavid-19 pandemic. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant solely on technical basis concerning condonation of delay without adjudicating the case on merits.” 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned authorised representative (AR) of the assessee submits that assessment was completed on 21st of April 2021. It was it was severe Covid-19 pandemic. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.393/Nag/2025 (AY 2018-19) Parikshit Ramesh Fuke 2 Assessment was completed under section 144. The assessee could not made compliance due to nationwide lockdown. On realising the passing of assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A) on 25th November 2021. The appeal of assessee was dismissed by learned CIT (A) on 24 April 2025. The learned CIT (A) dismissed the appeal by taking view that it was delayed by 188 days. The learned AR of the assessee submits that intervening delay during the Covid period was condoned by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020, wherein the time limit for taking recourse of law by individuals were extended up to February 2022 and further 90-day grace period was allowed. Thus, the entire alleged delayed period in filing appeal before ld CIT(A), is covered by the decision of Supreme Court. The learned CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue on merit. Therefore, matter may be restored back to the jurisdictional assessing officer for passing the assessment order afresh. The assessee is likely to file various evidence which may require verification at the end jurisdictional assessing officer. 3. On the other hand, the learned senior DR for the revenue submits that he has no objection, if the matter is restored for jurisdictional assessing officer. 4. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and perused the order of lower authorities carefully. On considering the fact of the present case we find merit in the contention of the learned AR of the assessee that at the time of passing assessment order it was a severe Covid pandemic period. The assessee filed appeal within the time period allowed by Hon’ble apex court in Suo Moto Writ Petition No. 3 of 2020. Thus, keeping in view the principle of natural justice and the facts that substantial rights of the assessee is involved, the matter is restored back to the file of jurisdictional assessing officer to pass the assessment order under reference. Needless to direct that before passing the assessment order afresh, the assessing officer will allow reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.393/Nag/2025 (AY 2018-19) Parikshit Ramesh Fuke 3 directed to be more vigilant in making timely compliance before the jurisdictional assessing officer. In the result grounds of appeal raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26/02/2026 at the time of hearing of appeal. Sd/– KHETTRA MOHAN ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER - Sd/– PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, Dated: 26/02/2026 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Nagpur Printed from counselvise.com "