RAJENDRA SUBHASH NAGARGOJE,SANGLI V. ITO, WARD-1, SANGLI, SANGLI

ITA 2520/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Rajendra Subhash Nagargoje, the appellant, who contested the order of the CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi, which had dismissed his appeal concerning an assessment order that added Rs. 74,00,000 as unexplained investment under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was the CIT(A)'s refusal to condone the delay in filing the appeal, which was attributed to the serious illness and death of the appellant's brother. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's request to reconsider the substantive issues, given the circumstances of the delay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791970 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others, Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ TRIPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPA KHARE
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Unexplained investment
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 69

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \" ीी \" ।येंयपीण प णी या न् IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"B\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 2520/PUN/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2016-17 Rajendra Subhash Nagargoje, AT PO Bedag, Tal-Miraj, Sangli- 416421 Maharashtra PAN-AFSPN4271K Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sangli अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by: Smt. Deepa Khare Department by: Shri Manoj Tripathi-Addl. CIT (through virtual) Date of hearing: 08-12-2025 Date of Pronouncement: 10-12-2025 आदीश /ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 03.09.2025 which is arising out of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144/144B of the Act dated 24.01.2024. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in dismissing the appeal by not condoning the delay without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 2520/PUN/2025 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case in confirming addition of Rs. 74 lakhs as un-explained money u/s 69A without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law and in the circumstances of the case in not appreciating that the Agricultural land is purchased jointly and the assessee's share is 50% i.e. 37 lakhs only. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in facts and in law in not appreciating that the sources of the purchase of Land the loans from the financial institution 24 Lakhs and remaining amount Rs. 13 lakhs out of Agri income. 5. Appellant craves to leave add new ground or amend, alter, change, modify any or all the above ground of Appeal. 3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for setting aside the issues raised on merits in the instant appeal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) who has dismissed the assessee’s appeal in limine on account of delay of 113 days in filing of the appeal. 4. On the other hand Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. The assessee is an individual and did not file return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. Based on the information above large transactions totaling to Rs. 83,47,490/- made by the assessee during financial year 2015-16. Assessee was served valid statutory notice u/s 148 of the Act. In response to which assessee filed the return declaring income of Rs. 3,91,040/- Subsequently Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act but assessee failed to make proper Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 2520/PUN/2025 compliance. Ld. AO passed best judgement assessment making addition of Rs. 74,00,000/- for unexplained investment u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order dated 24.01.2024. However the appeal was delayed by 113 days. Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. We on going through the reasons for delay mentioned by the assessee in Form No. 35 filed before Ld. CIT(A) observe that the delay was on account of major illness of assessee’s Brother who unfortunately expired on 22.11.2023. It is quite evident that in such a situation the family life undergoes a very sad phase. Considering the reasonable cause, in the larger interest of justice and also placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others(1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) (Supreme Court) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382), we hereby condone the delay of 113 days before Ld. CIT(A). 7. So far as merits of the case are considered, since Ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of the case, we on considering the prayer made by Ld. Counsel for the assessee deem it appropriate to restore the issues raised in the instant appeal on merits back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication and for passing a speaking order as contemplated u/s 250(6) of the Act. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of hearing shall be granted to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 2520/PUN/2025 reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 10th day of December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER प णी/ Pune; ददिेंंक /Dated: 10th December, 2025. Neeta आदीश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रीधर्ि /Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलेंर्थी /The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी /The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. धवभेंगीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, \"ीी\" ीाच, प णी /DR, ITAT, \"B\" Bench, Pune. 5. गेंर्ा फेंइल /Guard File. आदीशेंि सेंर /BY ORDER, //True Copy// वररष्ठ धिजी सधचव /Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, प णी /ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com "