Abdul Rahman Abdul Rab Choudhary Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Summary: The appeal before the ITAT, Pune Bench arose from the order dated 04.05.2017 of the ld. CIT(A), Pune-13, arising out of the assessment order dated 02.03.2015 passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2012-13. The Registry pointed out a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, and the assessee filed a condonation application explaining the circumstances leading to the delay.
The assessee stated that the assessment order had been passed on 02.03.2015 and that the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was filed on 17.03.2016. The CIT(A) passed an order on 04.05.2017 partly allowing the appeal. Thereafter, the assessee received a notice dated 23.12.2025 from the ld. Assessing Officer seeking supporting documents so that effect could be given to the CIT(A)’s order after verification of the assessee’s claim. According to the assessee, this notice was the first occasion on which he came to know about the passing of the appellate order.
Immediately thereafter, the assessee filed an adjournment letter dated 07.01.2026, uploaded on the e-portal, stating that he was neither aware of the notices, the assessment proceedings, the appellate authority notices, nor the passing of the appellate order dated 04.05.2017. It was also contended that the earlier Tax Consultant had failed to comply with the notices, which resulted in the passing of the orders. In support of the condonation application, reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Anr Vs. Raghu Raj (2008) 13 SCC 293 and Rafiq Vs. Munshilal (1981) 2 SCC 788. The Tribunal also recorded that the assessee had addressed letters dated 07.01.2026, 12.02.2026 and 27.04.2026 seeking documents relating to his case and had filed an RTI application dated 28.04.2026 seeking certified copies of notices, submissions/replies filed during assessment proceedings, the order sheet, assessment order, Form No. 35, written submissions and details concerning service of notices.
On consideration of the reasons advanced by the assessee, the Tribunal found that there was ‘reasonable cause’ preventing the assessee from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. It held that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional. The Tribunal placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, judgment dated 21.03.2025, and admitted the appeal for adjudication.
Considering the peculiar facts and the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee, the Tribunal, in the larger interest of justice, set aside the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and remitted back all the issues raised in the appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal simultaneously directed the assessee to take steps to place the correct email address and postal/communication address on record before the ld. CIT(A) and at the ITBA Portal, remain vigilant and track the appellate proceedings through the ITBA Portal, file all relevant details, documents and submissions upon receiving the hearing notice, and refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause.
The ld. CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal afresh in accordance with law after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal was ultimately allowed for statistical purposes.
Cases Discussed
- Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Anr Vs. Raghu Raj (2008) 13 SCC 293
- Rafiq Vs. Munshilal (1981) 2 SCC 788
- Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107
- Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, judgment dated 21.03.2025
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13 is directed against the order dated 04.05.2017 of ld.CIT(A), Pune-13 which is arising out of Assessment Order dated 02.03.2015 passed u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay in filing appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee filed a condonation application wherein it is stated that assessment order was passed on 02.03.2015. Assessee has filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) on 17.03.2016 which came to be passed partly allowing the appeal in favour of the assessee on 04.05.2017. Thereafter, assessee received notice dated 23.12.2025 from the ld.Assessing Officer seeking some information to verify the claim after 9 years which reads as under :
Sub-Submission of supporting documents in support of your claim-reg
01. Kindly refer to the above.
02. As you have filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against assessment order dated 02.03.2015 and now the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order on 04.05.2017 and directed this office to give effect to order to the Ld. CIT(A)’s order, after verification of assessee’s documents in support of his/her claim.
03. You are requested to submit supporting documents regarding your claim in this office by 29.12.2025 so that OGE to the Ld. CIT(A)’s order may be passed accordingly.
2.1 Assessee submitted that it was only through this notice assessee came to be know about passing of appellate order. Immediately, assessee filed adjournment letter dated 07.01.2026 (uploaded on e-portal) stating that he is neither aware of the notices, assessment proceedings nor about the appellate authority notices, and also about the passing of appellate order on 04.05.2017. It is also contended in the said reply that earlier Tax Consultant failed to make compliance to any of the notices which resulted in passing of the orders. In support, assessee vide condonation of application placed reliance on the Judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Anr Vs. Raghu Raj (2008) 13 SCC 293 and the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rafiq Vs. Munshilal (1981) 2 SCC 788. We also find that assessee addressed letters dated 07.01.2026, 12.02.2026, 27.04.2026 seeking the documents related to his case. He also filed an RTI application dated 28.04.2026 seeking the certified copies of the documents viz., notices, submissions/replies filed during assessment proceedings, order sheet, assessment order, Form No. 35, written submissions, date of serving of notices etc.
3. We have gone through the reasons as demonstrated by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find that due to ‘reasonable cause’ assessee could not file the appeal before this Tribunal within the stipulated time. On due consideration of the reasons for delay in filing of appeal before Tribunal, we find that the delay is neither deliberate nor intentional and therefore 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 this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication.
4. Considering the peculiar facts in the instant case and also the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for the assesee, we in the larger interest of justice set aside the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A) and remit back all the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for afresh adjudication. However, in order to ensure compliance and co-operation by the assessee during the appellate proceedings before the ld.CIT(A), we direct the assessee to take steps to get the correct email address and postal/communication address on record before the ld.CIT(A) and at the ITBA Portal. Assessee is directed to be vigilant and track the appellate proceedings through ITBA Portal. Assessee is also directed to file all relevant details, documents and submission before the ld.CIT(A) on receiving notice of hearing and refrain from taking adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Ld. CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the appeal afresh in accordance with law after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 09th day of September, 2026.
