RAJENDRA SURESH NALAGE,AHMEDNAGAR V. ITO, WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

ITA 2589/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a series of appeals filed by Rajendra Suresh Nalage against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi, concerning the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The appeals were initially delayed due to the personal distress of the assessee following the death of his wife during the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to a mental disturbance and lack of awareness of the orders passed. The Tribunal considered the circumstances and the legal precedents cited, particularly emphasizing the importance of substantial justice over technical considerations. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for a final opportunity to present his case, leading to the decision to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837565 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHILPA N C
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATIK SANDBHOR
• Keywords: Co-operative Credit Society
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sr No ITA No. Appellant Respondent Date of order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC A.Y. 1 2589/PUN/2025 Rajendra Suresh Nalage 7, Tarabad Hsg Society, Nagar Pune Road, Kamargaon, Ahmednagar – 414005 PAN: ACXPN1452A ITO, Ward-2, Ahmednagar 13.07.2024 2014-15 2 2590/PUN/2025 -do- -do- 09.07.2024 2014-15 3 2591/PUN/2025 -do- -do- 11.07.2024 2013-14 4 2592/PUN/2025 -do- -do- 11.07.2024 2013-14 5 2593/PUN/2025 -do- -do- 09.07.2024 2013-14 6 2594/PUN/2025 -do- -do- 13.07.2024 2014-15 Assessee by : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Department by : Smt. Shilpa NC, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 19-02-2026 Date of pronouncement : 20-02-2026 O R D E R PER BENCH: The above batch of 6 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment years as mentioned above. For the sake of convenience, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. There is a delay of 402 days in filing of these appeals before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed separate condonation applications along with the Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos.2589 to 2594/PUN/2025 affidavits explaining the reasons for such delay. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the contents of the affidavit filed along with the condonation application submitted that due to death of the wife of the assessee on 14.05.2021 during Covid-19 he was mentally disturbed and had no knowledge of passing of any order by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC since he had not seen the e-mail due to disturbed mind. Relying on various decisions the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing of these appeals was neither intentional nor deliberate and therefore, should be condoned and admitted for adjudication. 3. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the condonation applications filed by the assessee. 4. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides on the issue of delay in filing of these appeals and considered the contents of the condonation applications filed along with the affidavits of the assessee. 5. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos.2589 to 2594/PUN/2025 the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 6. We find recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339 has held as under: “14. There can be no quarrel on the settled principle of law that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, but a major aspect which has to be kept in mind is that, if in a particular case, the merits have to be examined, it should not be scuttled merely on the basis of limitation.” 7. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the light of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited (supra), the delay in filing of these appeals is condoned and the appeals are admitted for adjudication. 8. A perusal of these appeals shows that all these are ex-parte orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 9. We find for assessment year 2013-14 the assessee filed his return of income on 28.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.5,49,780/-. Information was obtained by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has deposited cash to the tune of Rs.88,13,465/- in the account maintained with M/s. Shri Renukamata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited during the financial year 2012-13 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14. Since the assessee in his return of income Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos.2589 to 2594/PUN/2025 has not declared true and correct picture of income and the source of cash deposit are not explainable, therefore, the Assessing Officer after recording reasons, reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. However, the assessee did not file the return in response to the notice u/s 148 of the Act. The subsequent notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act was also remained un-complied with. The Assessing Officer, therefore, completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.93,63,245/- by making addition of Rs.88,13,465/- being the unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 10. Similarly, the Assessing Officer, due to non-submission of any details by the assessee, initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and levied penality of Rs.10,000/-. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty of Rs.27,23,400/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being the minimum penalty leviable @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 11. So far as assessment year 2014-15 is concerned, here also the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on the basis of cash deposit of Rs.35,41,255/- in the account maintained with M/s. Shri Renukamata Multi State Urban Co- operative Credit Society Limited. Since, there was no response to the notice issued u/s 148 as well as subsequent notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, he made addition Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA Nos.2589 to 2594/PUN/2025 of the same to the returned income of Rs.82,220/- and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.36,23,475/-. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act and Rs.11,19,654/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. Since the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC despite number of opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeals filed before him against the quantum additions as well as penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13. Aggrieved with such orders of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 14. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the assessee was under distress and deep grief due to the sudden death of his wife due to Covid- 19 on 14.05.2021. Further, the children of the assessee were also hospitalized. Under these circumstances, there was non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. He submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details. He accordingly submitted that the assessee should be given one final opportunity to substantiate his case. 15. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA Nos.2589 to 2594/PUN/2025 16. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. It is an admitted fact that due to non-filing of return in response to the notice u/s 148 as well as notice u/s 142(1) of the Act, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act determining the total income at Rs.93,63,245/- for assessment year 2013-14 and Rs.36,23,475/- for assessment year 2014-15. Due to non-submission of any details the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- each u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. Similarly, he also levied penalty of Rs.27,23,361/- and Rs.11,19,654/- for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Since, there was non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, he dismissed all the six appeals on account of non-prosecution. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to submit the requisite details before the Assessing Officer on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the Assessing Officer is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA Nos.2589 to 2594/PUN/2025 and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 17. In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 20th February, 2026 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA Nos.2589 to 2594/PUN/2025 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 19.02.2026 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 19.02.2026 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Office Superintendent 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order Printed from counselvise.com "