Yetchina Srinivas Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune)
The Tribunal condoned a 100-day delay in filing the appeal, recognizing that the assessee’s reliance on professional advice and relocation constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Collector Land Acquisition v. Katiji and Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 INSC 382), the ITAT adopted a justice- oriented approach.
The case involved disallowance of EPF and ESI contributions and a deduction claim under Section 80C. Given the taxpayer’s inability to submit records during the COVID-19 period and due to ill health, the Tribunal further remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration, as the appellant had been bereft of sufficient opportunity to present the facts and evidence before the Assessing Officer.
This order reinforces that substantive justice must prevail over procedural lapses.
Case Represented by Adv. Sachin P. Kumar from Sachin P. Kumar & Associates
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 30.01.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi emanating out of Assessment order dated 24.03.2021 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
