Daulat Savala Narute Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Assessee, an individual agriculturist, faced reassessment u/s 147 r.w.s.144/144B leading to addition of ₹51,19,500 against returned income of ₹2,29,970. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine, citing non-appearance & invoking the maxim Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt, as well as B.N. Bhattacharjee (SC) & Tukojirao Holkar (MP HC). Assessee filed appeal before ITAT with a delay of 27 days supported by affidavit explaining lack of tax knowledge, difficulty with e-assessment procedure, & failure of his consultant to follow up. Tribunal found the cause reasonable & condoned delay following Collector v. Katiji & Inder Singh.
Before ITAT, assessee raised new legal grounds challenging the validity of reopening. Tribunal held that although legal grounds are admissible in second appeal under NTPC v. CIT, their adjudication must arise from the order of CIT(A). Relying on Delhi High Court’s ruling in Divine Infracon Pvt Ltd v. PCIT (2025), Tribunal held that it cannot adjudicate issues which CIT(A) never considered. Since CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without examining either legal grounds or merits, the impugned order was set aside.
Entire matter—legal grounds & quantum issues—was remanded to CIT(A) for de novo adjudication with direction to pass a speaking order after giving adequate opportunity. Assessee was cautioned to remain vigilant & seek adjournments only for reasonable cause. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.
