SUNIL TRILOKCHAND JAIN,PUNE V. CIT (APPEAL), NFAC, DELHI

ITA 1616/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sunil Tilokchand Jain, the proprietor of Kushal Traders, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which had dismissed his appeal as barred by limitation. The original assessment order, which included an addition of Rs. 17.90 lakh under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was passed on 27.03.2024. The assessee, due to health issues and a significant drop in business turnover, was unaware of the assessment order sent to his tax consultant's email and failed to file the appeal in time. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay, leading to the current appeal before the ITAT.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772156 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• 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: SANJAY DHIVARE
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHIL PATHAK
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1616/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Sunil Tilokchand Jain Prop. of Kushal Traders, Chopda, Jalgaon 425107 Maharashtra PAN: AARPJ8872E Vs. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2022-23 is directed against the order dated 08.05.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Assessment Order dated 27.03.2024 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s144B of the Act. 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances assessee could not file the appeal before ld.CIT(A) in time and the delay of 130 days occurred in filing of appeal was for ‘reasonable cause’. Ld.CIT(A) has not condoned the appeal and the appeal has been dismissed in limine being barred by limitation. Only prayer made before me is condone the delay and to provide one more opportunity to go before ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication of the issues on merits. Ld. DR did not object to the request made by ld. Counsel for the assessee. Appellant by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Dhivare Date of hearing : 14.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 26.08.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1616/PUN/2025 Sunil Tilokchand Jain 2 3. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. Assessee is an individual and income of Rs.26,12,420/- declared in the return of income filed on 30.12.0222. After the case being selected for complete scrutiny through CASS followed by validly serving statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, assessment has been completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act on 27.03.2024 and addition of Rs.17.90 lakh has been made u/s.68 of the Act. 4. Aggrieved with the addition, assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) but with delay of 130 days. In Form No.35, assessee has mentioned the reason for the delay stating that he was unaware about the passing of assessment order as he was availing the services of Tax Consultant R.G. Sonar of Amalner whose primary e-mail [e-mail] was registered and there was no secondary mail. The assessment order was sent on the email id of the said Tax Consultant. Owing to ill- health, the turnover of the assessee fall from Rs.83.00 crore to Rs.20.00 crore. Assessee was not well versed with the faceless proceedings. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. However, Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay. On going through the averments and the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay as the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated time for ‘reasonable cause’. I therefore in light of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme 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 of 130 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. Since ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1616/PUN/2025 Sunil Tilokchand Jain 3 appeal on merits of the case, in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties I deem it proper to restore the issues raised on merit to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. Assessee is directed to update email id and contact detail on ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Impugned order is set aside and the effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 26th day of August, 2025. Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 26th August, 2025. Satish आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "