Dnyaneshwar Ekanath Balwadkar Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
193-Day Delay Condoned- Agriculturist Not Tech-Savvy: Tribunal Says ‘Don’t Throw Out Appeal on Technicality’
Assessee, an individual agriculturist, had not filed ROI for AY 2018-19. Based on financial transactions of ₹2,00,22,000, reassessment was initiated u/s 147 & completed ex-parte u/s 147 r.w.s.144 determining income at ₹5,74,28,150 as Assessee failed to respond to 148 notice & follow-up notices.
Before CIT(A)/NFAC, appeal was filed with a delay of 193 days. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay & dismissed the appeal in limine without examining merit. Assessee submitted before Tribunal that being a rural agriculturist unfamiliar with technology, he could register on the e-filing portal only on 24.09.2024, after which the appeal was filed.
Tribunal referred to Supreme Court’s decisions—Collector vs Katiji, holding that substantial justice must prevail over technical procedural barriers, & Inder Singh (2025 SC), which emphasised that matters needing merit-examination should not be defeated solely on limitation.
Applying these principles, ITAT held that the 193-day delay was not deliberate & deserved condonation. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without hearing it on merits. Tribunal restored the matter to CIT(A)/NFAC with directions to condone delay & adjudicate afresh after granting proper opportunity. Assessee directed to cooperate & avoid adjournments.
