SHAMKANT VIKRAM THAKARE,DHULE V. ITO WARD 1, DHULE

ITA 905/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shamkant Vikram Thakare, a primary school teacher and farmer, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which sustained additions made by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.14,83,639 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The appeal was initially time-barred, but the Tribunal found reasonable cause for the delay due to the assessee's lack of awareness of the appellate order, which was sent to an outdated email address. The Tribunal noted the principles of substantial justice over technicalities and decided to condone the delay and remand the case for a decision on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 705959 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [167 ITR 471], Lubricare Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [ITA No. 01/PUNE/2023], Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2025 INSC 382]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH SRIVASTAVA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANKET JOSHI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Revised return; Reasonable cause; Salary income

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण \"B\" \u0001यायपीठ पुणे म\b । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"B\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.905/PUN/2025 िनधा\u0005रण वष\u0005 / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shamkant Vikram Thakare, 1, at Post Padhavad, Shindkheda – 425403 Maharashtra PAN : ABWPT8381N Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dhule Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Sanket Joshi Department by Shri Akhilesh Srivastava Date of hearing 01.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 01.07.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.06.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“CIT(A)”] relating to Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At the outset, we find that the appeal before the Tribunal is time barred by 213 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay stating as under : “1. The appellate order passed by the CIT(A) for A.Y.2013-14 was issued on 19.06.2024. If the date of issuance and uploading of the appellate order on the income tax portal is considered as date of receipt, then the due date for filing appeal before Hon'ble ITAT would fall on 18.08.2024. The appeal is being filed on 01.04.2025. Accordingly, there is a delay of 226 days in filing the present appeal. 2. The appellant submits that the said delay in filing the appeal is attributable to a reasonable cause. The appellant individual is residing in the small village of Padavad which is around 50 kms from Dhule city. The appellant is employed as a Primary School Teacher in Zilla Parishad School and he is also ITA No.905/PUN/2025 Shamkant Vikram Thakare 2 engaged in agricultural activities in his village. It is submitted that the notices of hearing u/s 250 as well as the CIT(A) Order dated 19.06.2024 issued was on the old email i.e. [e-mail] which the appellant had stopped using many years ago. The appellant was using the email id: [e-mail]. However, the said email id was not updated on the income tax portal since the appellant individual residing in rural area was not aware about the technical formalities and procedures pertaining to income tax appeal. In view of this fact, the appellant was not aware of the fact that the appellate order u/s 250 for A.Y.2013-14 was passed on 19.06.2024. This fact came to the notice of appellant only when a recovery notice dated 13.02.2025 issued by the J.A.O. was received by the appellant through POST at his rural address on 19.02.2025. 3. After receipt of the said recovery notice, the appellant contacted a Tax Consultant to know the status of appeal and only then, on perusal of details on income tax portal, the appellant was informed that the CIT(A) had already passed the appellate order on 19.06.2024. Thereafter, the appellant individual staying in rural area approached a Counsel from Nashik practicing before Hon'ble ITAT and after compilation of the relevant documents and information, the appeal came to be filed on 01.04.2025. In view of the above facts, there was a delay of 226 days in filing the present appeal and it is prayed that the said delay may please be condoned in the interest of justice. 4. In this respect, the assessee places reliance on the ratio laid down in the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji&Ors. [167 ITR 471] wherein it has been held that \"When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred\". 5. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Pune in case of Lubricare Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT [ITA No. 01/PUNE/2023] & Others, dated 23.01.2023 wherein substantial delay of 997 days to 2197 days in different cases, has been condoned by holding that none should be deprived of adjudication on merits unless it is found that the litigant deliberately delayed filing of appeal. 6. In view of the above facts and judicial decisions cited, the appellant humbly prays that the delay in filing the present appeal may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice and the case may be decided on merits. The appellant would be very grateful if the delay is condoned and the appeal is adjudicated on merits.” 3. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the averments made in the condonation application. Hon’ble courts by virtue of various judgments observed that when consideration of an appeal on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim on the technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay. The Court considering an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. A liberal approach may be adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condoned delay of 1537 days sub-serving ITA No.905/PUN/2025 Shamkant Vikram Thakare 3 the cause of justice. It was held so while observing that the appeal filed by the appellant with a delay was unintentional, much less due to any deliberate laches, and was well-explained by the State before the High Court. Hon’ble Court further held that in cases where the merits are significant, a more liberal approach may be adopted to allow for the examination of the case on its merits. Having gone through the averments made in the condonation application and considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Court in the case of Inder Singh (supra), we are of the view that there was a ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. We therefore condone the delay of 213 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. On merits of the case, we find that although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the ex parte order of the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC in dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee and thereby sustaining the additions made by Assessing Officer amounting to Rs.14,83,639/-. 5. Facts of the case as emanating from the record are that the assessee is a Primary School Teacher earning salary income from Z.P. School and also engaged in agricultural activities. Original return of income was filed on 29.05.2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,37,490/- and the same was subsequently revised on 15.11.2018. Based on the AIR information available that the assessee has deposited cash to the extent of Rs.33,63,086/- in the saving bank account held with State Bank of India, Betawad Branch, case was reopened u/s.147 of the Act by the Assessing Officer by issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act after recording the reasons. Case was assigned to the Jurisdictional Assessing officer who issued statutory notice to the assessee u/s.142(1) of the Act on 14.08.2008. It was submitted by the assessee to treat the return filed by him on 29.05.2018 as return in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act. Thereafter, in response to statutory notices u/s.143(2)/142(1) dated 08.06.2018, the assessee submitted explanation detailing the cash deposited with supporting documents. ITA No.905/PUN/2025 Shamkant Vikram Thakare 4 5.1 The Assessing Officer observed that assessee has shown the agricultural income in the revised return of income. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was stated by the assessee that cash deposits are out of agricultural income derived out of Joint Agricultural land. The Assessing Officer after considering the submission of the assessee, the agricultural income shown by the family members, 7/12 extract and crops grown in the said land treated Rs.1,71,593/- as agricultural income earned by the assessee and treated Rs.13,12,046/- as unexplained cash. 6. The assessee challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer before the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC but failed to make appearance before him which resulted into passing of exparte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that notices of hearing issued by the office of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC went to the old e-mail id of the assessee which was not in use for many years. Further, it was submitted that the notices were also not sent on the e-mail id as per Form No.35. He submitted that it was for this precise reason that the assessee could not respond to the notices issued by ld.CIT(A). He accordingly submitted that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details. 9. Ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand submitted that ample opportunity was given to the assessee and the assessee failed to avail them, therefore, the order of the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC should be upheld. 10. We have heard the rival contentions made by both the sides and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that due to non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by the office of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC he dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. It is the submission of Ld. Counsel that the notices issued by the office of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC went to the old e-mail id which the assessee was not using for many years and further the notices were not issued on the registered e-mail id. Therefore, there was no compliance ITA No.905/PUN/2025 Shamkant Vikram Thakare 5 from the side of the assessee. It is also his submission 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 and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A)/NFAC with a direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the appeal as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to substantiate his case by filing the requisite details before ld.CIT(A)/NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, failing which the ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. We hold and direct accordingly. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the appeal are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself, i.e. 01st July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे/Pune; \u0005दनांक /Dated : 01st July, 2025 आदेश क ितिलिप अ\u0010ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ\u000f /Appellant 2. \u0010\u0011यथ\u000f /Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT Concerned 4. िवभागीय \u0010ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब\u0015च, पुणे/DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0005 फाइल/Guard File आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER //True Copy// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune "