Vishnu Ganpat Gaikwad Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Clerical Error in Form 35 Shouldn’t Kill Appeal: Tribunal Sends Matter Back to CIT(A)- CIT(A) Cannot Dismiss in Limine: Must Decide Merits u/s 250(6)
Assessee, an agriculturist & one of several Vahivatdars in a large land acquisition dispute, filed appeal before ITAT with a delay of 258 days. Condonation application explained that more than ₹62 crore of enhanced compensation had been blocked in FDRs since 2016 due to challenge by SLAO before Bombay High Court, causing continuous litigation, multiple proceedings before Charity Commissioner & police authorities, & limited availability of legal assistance in the remote village. Tribunal found the explanation reasonable &, applying Collector v. Katiji & Inder Singh, condoned the delay.
On merits, assessment u/s 147 r.w.s.144/144B resulted in additions of ₹1.40 crore by denying exemption u/s 10(37) & ₹16,33,594 on account of short admission of interest. Assessee’s appeal before CIT(A) was delayed by 78 days. Due to a clerical mistake by the earlier CA, the Form 35 wrongly marked “No” to the question on delay. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as time-barred without adjudicating issues either on legality of reopening or on merits. Tribunal held that such dismissal in limine violated the mandate of section 250(6) & Bombay HC ruling in PCIT(C) v. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) requiring disposal on merits even ex parte. Tribunal also noted that although legal grounds can be raised in second appeal under NTPC v. CIT, they must first arise from the CIT(A)’s order, as clarified by Delhi HC in Divine Infracon Pvt Ltd.
