PRAVIN KUMAR BALWANT BIRHADE,PUNE V. WARD 8(1), PUNE

ITA 687/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Pravin Kumar Balwant Birhade against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which was passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arising from an assessment order dated 19.03.2015 under section 144 of the Act. The primary contention was the non-condonation of a significant delay (3134 days) in filing the appeal against the assessment order, which the assessee argued was due to the late receipt of the order. The ITAT found merit in the assessee's arguments, referencing judgments from the Hon'ble Apex Court to support the decision to condone the delay and remit the case back for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775463 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2025
• 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: HARSHIT BARI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI PAHLANI
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.687/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Pravin Kumar Balwant Birhade Saigauri Petroleum BPCL, OLD NH4, Pune Kasarwadi SO, Pune 411034, Maharashtra PAN: AHJPB1116C Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 8(1), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 16.01.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 19.03.2015 passed u/s.144 of the Act. 2. From the perusal of grounds, we notice that apart from grounds of appeal raised on merits against various additions totalling to Rs.5,11,644/-, assessee has also raised a ground challenging the impugned order stating that in spite of reasonable cause ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 3134 days and dismissed the appeal in limine. Appellant by : Shri Ravi Pahlani Respondent by : Shri Harshit Bari Date of hearing : 18.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 08.09.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.687/PUN/2025 Pravin Kumar Balwant Birhade 2 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the written submissions placed at page 1 to 4 submitted that assessment order for A.Y 2012-13 framed on 19.03.2015 was not served upon the assessee and the Department had not contacted assessee for payment of outstanding demand till the first quarter of the year 2025. Immediately after receiving the information through telephonic communication from the Income Tax Department, assessee obtained copy of assessment order and filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 19.03.2025. Thereafter, assessee has also filed application on 10.06.2025 seeking acknowledgement of service of the assessment order and relevant documents so as to file the details before ld. CIT(A) for condonation of delay. However, ld. CIT(A) has not given cognizance to the fact that assessee has received the assessment order at a later stage and has not condoned the delay. Prayer made to condone the said delay before ld.CIT(A) and to provide one more opportunity of going before the lower authorities by condoning the delay. Ld. DR supported the order of ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Admittedly, against the assessment order for A.Y 2012-13 framed on 19.03.2015 assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) with a delay of 3134 days. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee taking us through paper book running into 34 pages has successfully demonstrated that sufficient and reasonable cause prevented the assessee from filing appeal in the prescribed time limit before CIT(A). We further observe that assessee would not have gained with the said delay and therefore taking support from the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.687/PUN/2025 Pravin Kumar Balwant Birhade 3 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) we condone the delay of 3134 days. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for setting aside the matter to the file of lower authorities. We note that ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with the merits of the case and further note that the assessment order has also been framed u/s.144 of the Act as Best Judgment Assessment. Under these given facts and circumstances and considering the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee, we deem it proper to remit back the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication in accordance with law. Assessee is directed to update email id and contact detail on 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 of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 08th day of September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 08th September, 2025. Satish Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.687/PUN/2025 Pravin Kumar Balwant Birhade 4 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 // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "