TIRTHRAJ RAOSAHEB DOPE,AURANGABAD V. ITO, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

ITA 1961/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Tirthraj Raosaheb Dope, the appellant, who contested an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which arose from an assessment order passed under sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment included a substantial sum of Rs. 77,44,700 as income from other sources, specifically from gaming winnings, which the assessee failed to comply with during the scrutiny assessment. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a 60-day delay in filing, without discussing the merits. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and judicial precedents, decided to condone the delay and remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840373 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2025
• 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: PRATEEK JHA
• Keywords: Set aside; Reasonable cause
• Section: 144; 142(1)

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.1961/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2022-23 Tirthraj Raosaheb Dope, N-11, B-111/4, Subhashchandra Bose Nagar, CIDCO Colony S.O., Aurangabad-431003 Maharashtra PAN : AKXPD2915Q Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2022-23 is directed against the order dated 23.07.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of Assessment Order dated 16.03.2024 passed u/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 of 60 days 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 Prateek Jha Respondent by : Shri Pramod Shahakar Date of hearing : 09.02.2026 Date of pronouncement : 23.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1961/PUN/2025 Tirthraj Raosaheb Dope 2 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and income of Rs.3,48,390/- declared in the return of income for A.Y.2 022-23 filed on 28.07.2022. Based on the information that assessee received winnings to the tune of Rs.77,44,700/- from gaming on portal managed by M/s. Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd. case selected for scrutiny and after serving statutory notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act there was no compliance from the side of assessee. In the said circumstances, Ld. Assessing Officer concluded the Best Judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act and added the said sum of Rs.77,44,700/- as income from other sources taxing u/s.115BB of the Act. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) but with a delay of 60 days. Ld.CIT(A) placing reliance on various decisions dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay and without discussing anything on merits of the case. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal 4. We however considering the reasons stated by the assessee and also taking justice oriented approach find that the delay is not deliberate and assessee has not gained anything by filing the appeal with delay. Further, there may be some extraneous circumstances beyond the control of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the time limit which cannot be ruled out. However, 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) Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1961/PUN/2025 Tirthraj Raosaheb Dope 3 we are inclined to condone the delay of 60 days before ld.CIT(A) granting one more opportunity to the assessee. 5. In view thereof and 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 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1961/PUN/2025 Tirthraj Raosaheb Dope 4 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 "