Surendra Sumatilal Sancheti Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Counsel’s Lapse Can’t Kill Statutory Remedy: Delay Condoned & All Quantum–Penalty Appeals Revived
Pune ITAT condoned the delay and restored six appeals (three quantum & three penalty u/s 271(1)(c)) which were earlier dismissed in limine by NFAC-CIT(A) on limitation.
The Assessee, an individual trader, had filed appeals against reassessment orders u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B as well as penalty orders u/s 271(1)(c). However, CIT(A) dismissed all appeals without examining merits, solely on the ground of delay. Before ITAT, the Assessee filed an affidavit of the tax consultant, candidly admitting that due to lack of experience and non-compliance on his part, appeals could not be effectively pursued.
ITAT noted that the delay was not intentional or attributable to the Assessee, and that no adjudication on merits had taken place at the first appellate stage. Applying the liberal principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector vs. Mst. Katiji and Inder Singh vs. State of MP (2025), Tribunal held that procedural lapses by counsel should not extinguish substantive appellate rights.
Accordingly, ITAT condoned the delay, set aside the ex-parte dismissal orders, and restored all six matters to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to decide afresh on merits by passing a speaking order u/s 250(6) after granting due opportunity. All appeals were thus allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
