SANJAY JADHAV,SANGLI V. ITO , WARD-2, SANGLI

ITA 1836/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sanjay Bapurao Jadhav, the appellant, who did not file a regular return of income for the assessment year 2018-19. Based on information regarding cash transactions, a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act was served, but the appellant did not respond by filing a return. Consequently, the Assessing Officer concluded the proceedings under section 144, making an addition for unexplained money under section 69A amounting to Rs.1,47,58,000. The appellant's subsequent appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to being barred by limitation, which the CIT(A) did not condone. The appellant cited personal reasons for the delay, including a marriage function and health issues. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and aiming for justice, condoned the delay and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on the merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841925 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2025
• 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: PRAMOD SHAHAKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: CHANDAN KATARIYA
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Reassessment proceedings

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1836/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanjay Bapurao Jadhav, Sulatanagade Khanapur, Sangli – 415307 Maharashtra PAN : AABTV0197J Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Sangli Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 24.06.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of Assessment Order dated 17.03.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing of the appeal and dismissed the appeal in limine. He only prayed for affording one more opportunity to plead before ld.CIT(A) on merits of the case. Appellant by : Shri Chandan Katariya Respondent by : Shri Pramod Shahakar Date of hearing : 10.02.2026 Date of pronouncement : 23.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1836/PUN/2025 Sanjay Bapurao Jadhav 2 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and no regular return of income has been filed for A.Y. 2018-19. Based on the information about cash withdrawal and cash deposit, valid notice u/s.148 of the Act has been served upon the assessee but again the assssee opted for not filing the return in response thereto. Assessee has also not participated fairly in the reassessment proceedings and ld. Assessing Officer had concluded the proceedings u/s.144 of the Act making addition for unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act at Rs.1,47,58,000/-. Against the assessment order dated 17.03.2023 assessee has filed the appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 09.08.2023 which is certainly barred by limitation. Assessee has stated that due to marriage function of his daughter in the month of February and other health issues he could not file the appeal in time. However, ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the delay. 4. We however considering the reasons stated by the assessee and also taking justice oriented approach find that the delay is not intentional and assessee has not gained anything by filing the appeal with delay. We therefore placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, 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) condone the delay before ld.CIT(A). 5. Since ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues on merits of the case as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the case, we on considering the facts and circumstances deem it appropriate to restore the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1836/PUN/2025 Sanjay Bapurao Jadhav 3 ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceeding shall provide reasonable opportunity to the assessee and decide the issues on merit as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and make satisfactory compliance to the notice(s) of hearing issued by ld.CIT(A) and should refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 23rd day of February, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दिन ांक / Dated : 23rd February, 2026. Satish आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “B” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER, / True Copy // Assistant Registrar, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "