The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune has delivered significant relief to a senior citizen taxpayer who missed his income tax appeal deadline by 191 days. According to reports from Mint, the tribunal set aside the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, who had dismissed the assessee's appeal at the start for the delay. The tribunal has now directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after giving the assessee a hearing. The ITAT order 1586/PUN/2026 was pronounced on August 28, 2026, providing substantial justice despite the technical delay.
The case involved Chandrakant Krishanaji Phule, a senior citizen residing in Pune, who did not file his return for assessment year 2018-19. As reported by Mint, the assessing officer found that during the year ended March 31, 2018, the assessee had sold two immovable properties for ₹2.62 crore and ₹25.45 lakh respectively, and earned ₹80,335 as interest on fixed deposits with Central Bank of India. The case was reopened under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and a notice under section 148 was issued, with the assessee not filing a return in response.
The assessing officer completed the assessment on March 30, 2023, making two additions: ₹80,335 as unexplained investment under section 69, taxed at 60 per cent under section 115BBE, and ₹65.60 lakh as the assessee's one-fourth share in the total sale consideration of ₹2.62 lakh, treated as long-term capital gain. According to Mint, the total income was assessed at ₹91.85 lakh. Before the CIT(A), the appeal was filed with a delay of 191 days, with the assessee explaining that his wife was suffering from cancer and passed away on January 7, 2023, causing mental and emotional distress. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on limitation grounds without examining the substantive tax issues.
The tribunal found that the taxpayer had raised substantive grounds that warranted consideration, including disputes over capital gains computation and stamp-duty valuation. As reported by Mint, Phule disputed the computation of long-term capital gains and argued that the property had actually been sold much earlier, with the consideration received through an account-payee pay order. He also challenged the stamp-duty valuation used for determining the capital gain and argued that the matter should have been referred to a Government Valuation Officer. The taxpayer separately contended that the ₹80,335 interest income should have been assessed as income from other sources rather than being treated as unexplained investment. The tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji, where the apex court held that substantial justice should generally be preferred over technical considerations where the two conflict.
The tribunal's order provides relief that could benefit a large number of taxpayers who miss appellate deadlines due to genuine circumstances. According to Mint, the order does not mean that Phule has won the underlying tax dispute - the ₹65.60 lakh capital-gains addition and ₹80,335 addition will now have to be examined by the appellate authority on their merits. The case highlights the tribunal's adoption of a justice-oriented approach while considering delay condonation, emphasizing that meritorious matters should not be thrown out at the very threshold. The order demonstrates that technical delays should not prevent examination of substantive tax issues when taxpayers have raised genuine grounds requiring consideration.
