SUNIL VASANTRAO CHOKAKKAR,KOLHAPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, KUDAL, KUDAL

ITA 2982/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sunil Vasantrao Chokakkar, the appellant, who contested the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which had dismissed his appeal for non-prosecution. The dismissal was primarily due to the assessee's failure to respond to multiple notices of hearing, attributed to his irregular access to email and the Income Tax website. The Tribunal noted the assessee's reliance on a tax consultant for managing his tax affairs and the subsequent delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's reasons for the delay and decided to set aside the order of the NFAC, remanding the matter back for a detailed examination of the grounds of appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 828831 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Pune
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHASHANK OJHA
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause; Reassessment proceedings

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2982/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sunil Vasantrao Chokakkar, 1027, Irwin Christian High School, Rajaram Road, E-Ward, Kolhapur – 416003, Maharashtra PAN : AAYPC0283F Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Kudal Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2013-14 is directed against the order dated 03.10.2023 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment Order dated 23.09.2021 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is delay of 703 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the delay and relevant contents are reproduced below: “2. That the appellant submits that he does not regularly access his email ID and also does not have access to the Income Tax website. 3. Hence, the appellant was dependent upon the tax consultant for the appeal and other Taxation works. That when our tax consultant verified the Income Tax Portal, it came to the knowledge of our tax consultant that the appellate order has been passed. Accordingly, our Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Shashank Ojha Date of hearing : 12.01.2026 Date of pronouncement : 16.01.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2982/PUN/2025 Sunil Vasantrao Chokakkar 2 tax consultant has advised us to file appeal with ITAT, Pune. The aforesaid process resulted in delay in filling appeal with ITAT. 4. Accordingly this Affidavit is made to explain delay of 703 days in filling appeal with ITAT, Pune, with a humble request to condone the delay and accept the appeal.” 3. After hearing ld. Departmental Representative and considering the affidavit filed by the assessee stating the reasons which led to delay and also placing reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107) I find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee failed to file the appeal within the time limit specified under the Act. I therefore condone the delay of 703 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. However, considering the fact that assessee failed to make any compliance before ld.CIT(A) and with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative and material available on record I proceed to adjudicate the appeal. Assessee has raised seven grounds of appeal. I will first take up the Ground No.1 which reads as under : “1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE ((NFAC), Delhi, erred in dismissing the appeal for non- prosecution. The appellant submits that he does not regularly access his email ID and also does not have access to the Income Tax website. Therefore, the appellate order passed may please be deleted.” 5. Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supporting the order of ld.CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2982/PUN/2025 Sunil Vasantrao Chokakkar 3 6. I have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before me. I observe that the assessee is an individual and declared income of ₹4,16,440 in the return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 e-filed on 20.03.2020 Case reopened after issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act and reassessment proceedings were carried out. However, in absence of proper details, ld. Assessing Officer made various additions amounting to ₹16,94,146 and assessed income at ₹21,10,586. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but after filing of the appeal failed to respond to five notices of hearing fixed on the dates of hearing on 07.08.2023, 17.08.2023, 29.08.2023, 11.09.2023 and 22.09.2023. We note that notices of hearing have been issued on five occasions in short span of one and half month and from the grounds of appeal it emerges that the assessee is not accessing e-mail id regularly and therefore notices of hearing went unnoticed. In the statement of facts, assessee has stated that the source of cash deposit was mainly from the loan of ₹8.50 lakh taken from Sindhudurg Zilla Madhyamik –Uchha Madhyamik Shikshak Shikshekettar Karmachari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit and the same was withdrawn in cash and again deposited in Saraswat Cooperative Bank. Assessee has also withdrawn the cash from salary account. Fixed Deposits have been made out of the past savings. It is claimed that deduction u/s.80C for payments made to LIC and provident fund deserves to be allowed as they have been deducted by the employer and paid to the concerned authority. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2982/PUN/2025 Sunil Vasantrao Chokakkar 4 7. Considering all these facts stated by the assessee in the statement of facts and also observing that ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non response to the notices of hearing, I deem it appropriate to give one more opportunity to the assessee to go before ld.CIT(A) and adduce evidences in support of its grounds of appeal. Needless to mention that ld.CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings shall afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee and pass a speaking order as contemplated u/s.250(6) of the Act. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from 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 Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 8. Since by way of Ground No.1, the issues are remitted back to the file of ld.CIT(A) dealing with remaining grounds would be merely academic in nature. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced on this 16th day of January, 2026. Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 16th January, 2026. Satish Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.2982/PUN/2025 Sunil Vasantrao Chokakkar 5 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 // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune Printed from counselvise.com "