The Pune ITAT bench comprising Judicial Member Manu Kumar Giri and Accountant Member S. R. Raghunatha passed its order on 8 September 2026 for assessment year 2017-18 in the case of Seema Narendra Dhavale vs Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward, Tambaram. According to reports from Mint, the tribunal restored the matter for fresh examination after finding that the original proceedings had been completed without the taxpayer being heard on merits. The case involved a non-working woman who had no PAN on digital records, was not registered on the e-filing portal, and had no registered email id.
The case concerned Seema Narendra Dhavale, a resident of Pune City, for assessment year 2017-18. As reported by Mint, the tax department's attention was drawn to her following a search in the case of M/s Cludobits IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd., which revealed an undisclosed contractual payment of ₹4.80 lakh received by her from the company. Departmental data also showed that Dhavale had sold immovable property during the year for a total consideration of ₹43.50 lakh. The assessing officer completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 144 on 30 March 2022, determining the long-term capital gain at ₹26,80,515, adding a further ₹80,000 as other income, and assessing her total income at ₹27,60,515.
The assessing officer issued statutory notices under sections 148 and 142(1), but statutory notices could not be served on Dhavale as she was not registered on the e-filing portal. According to Mint, Dhavale responded to a show cause notice stating that her income was below the taxable limit and that no capital gain arose on the sale as she had purchased another property. However, the assessing officer was not persuaded and completed the assessment. Dhavale subsequently appealed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, but with a delay of 1,315 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on 30 April 2026, holding that the appellant had not satisfactorily explained the reason for the delay in filing the appeal.
The Pune ITAT decided to give Dhavale another opportunity by accepting the reasons for the delay stated by her counsel CA Ritvik Vatsyayan, who argued that Dhavale is a non-working woman not engaged in any business activity and is not aware of legal procedures following income tax matters. As reported by Mint, the tribunal noted that "due to 'reasonable cause' assessee could not file the appeal before ld.CIT(A) in time" and observed that "assessee has not gained anything from filing the appeal with delay." Taking what it described as a "justice oriented approach," the ITAT bench condoned the delay, relying on Supreme Court decisions in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji and Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remitted all issues back to the jurisdictional assessing officer, directing him to frame the assessment afresh in accordance with law after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The ruling highlights several important lessons for taxpayers who have never engaged with the income tax system. According to Mint, the Income Tax department can always find ways to trace undisclosed income even when there is no digital footprint. Second, where genuine unawareness causes delay, the doors of appeal before ITAT are not permanently shut. Third, keeping PAN and contact details updated remains the safer route than litigation. The case demonstrates that while the tax demand has not been cancelled, the taxpayer has been given a fresh opportunity to present her case before the assessing officer after the ITAT's condonation of the delay.
