SANGITADEVI KISHOREKUMAR MUNDRA,ICHALKARANJI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

ITA 2762/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sangitadevi Kishorekumar Mundra, the appellant, against the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kolhapur, the respondent. The dispute arose from an order passed under sections 147 read with 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2020-21, which made various additions to the assessee's income, significantly increasing it from the declared income of 13,43,290 to 2,98,95,493. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was initially dismissed due to a delay of 119 days in filing, attributed to the death of her Chartered Accountant. The ITAT found this delay reasonable, considering the circumstances, and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, remitting the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 829254 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Pune
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2025
• 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: AVIYOGI AMBADKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD S SHINGTE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.2762/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year 2020-2021) Sangitadevi Kishorekumar Mundra, 3/56 Madanlal Bohara Market, Sangli Road, Ichalkaranji, Maharashtra-416115 PAN : AABCB 8390 C vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolhapur. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pramod S Shingte, AR For Revenue : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 12.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 13.01.2026 ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated 07/11/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which is arising out of order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 11.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA.No.2762/PUN/2025 (Sangitadevi Kishorekumar Mundra) 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by not condoning the delay in respite of the reason that Chartered Accountant (CA) who looked after her appellate work expired on 23.12.2024, as a result of which, appeal could not be filed in time. He requested that in the interest of justice, assessee may please be provided one more opportunity of hearing to go before the Ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication on the issues raised in the instant appeal. 3. Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, is fair enough in opposing the request of learned counsel for the assessee. 4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that assessee is an individual and regular return of income not furnished. Income of ₹13,43,290/- declared in the return filed in response to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. In the course of re-assessment proceedings, assessee made various submissions. The Ld.AO concluded the proceedings making various additions and assessed the income at ₹ 2,98,95,493/-. 5. Aggrieved with the order passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), but the same was barred by limitation by 119 days. The reasons for delay were provided by the assessee, which have been Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA.No.2762/PUN/2025 (Sangitadevi Kishorekumar Mundra) reproduced at para No. 2.2 of the impugned order. The main reason for delay is due to sudden death of CA-Suresh Chandra Premraj Kasat on 23.12.2024 who was looking after the taxation matters of the assessee. We find that this is a reasonable cause because for such taxation matters the assessee(s) are dependent on the Tax Consultant and it is not so easy to locate a new Tax Consultant in a short period. Since delay is not intentional therefore adopting a justice oriented approach and also taking guidance from the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(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 hereby condone the delay in filing of appeal before Ld.CIT(A). 6. So far as merits of the cases are concerned, ideally the matter deserves to be restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) as the issues on merits have not been dealt with by the Ld.CIT(A). Therefore, we deem it appropriate to remit back the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for decision afresh on the issues on merits. Needless to mention that Ld.CIT(A) shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then decide the issues in accordance with law and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA.No.2762/PUN/2025 (Sangitadevi Kishorekumar Mundra) not to take unnecessary adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13.01.2026 Sd/- Sd/- [ASTHA CHANDRA] [MANISH BORAD] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune, Dated 13th January, 2026 vr/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. PCIT concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. By Order //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "