A Pune-based senior citizen who missed the deadline to file an income-tax appeal by 191 days after his wife’s death has received relief from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune. The tribunal has directed the tax appellate authority to condone the delay and hear the taxpayer’s appeal on merits.
ITAT order 1586/PUN/2026 pronounced on 28 August 2026, relates to Chandrakant Krishanaji Phule for assessment year 2018-19. The tribunal did not delete the tax additions made by the assessing officer. Instead, it held that the appeal should not have been rejected solely because of the delay, particularly when the taxpayer had raised substantive grounds that required examination.
Why the taxpayer’s appeal was delayed
Phule had not filed his income-tax return for assessment year 2018-19. The assessment was subsequently reopened under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and proceedings were initiated under section 148.
According to the ITAT order, the assessing officer found that the taxpayer had sold two immovable properties during the relevant period for ₹2.62 crore and ₹25.45 lakh. He had also received ₹80,335 as interest from fixed deposits with Central Bank of India.
The assessing officer ultimately made an addition of ₹80,335 as unexplained investment under section 69 and another addition of ₹65.60 lakh as long-term capital gain. The taxpayer’s total income was assessed at ₹91.85 lakh.
When Phule challenged the assessment before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the appeal was filed 191 days after the prescribed deadline.
The taxpayer explained the delay by pointing to his wife’s illness and death. The tribunal recorded that his wife had been suffering from cancer and died on 7 January 2023. He submitted that the resulting mental and emotional distress contributed to his inability to file the appeal within the prescribed period.
The CIT(A), however, did not accept this explanation as a sufficient or reasonable cause and dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation, without examining the substantive tax issues.
ITAT says merits should be examined
The ITAT found that the taxpayer had raised substantive grounds that warranted consideration. Among other issues, he 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.
In deciding the delay issue, the tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji. The Supreme Court has held that substantial justice should generally be preferred over technical considerations where the two conflict.
The ITAT therefore set aside the CIT(A)’s order and directed the authority to condone the 191-day delay and decide the appeal on merits after giving the parties an opportunity to be heard.
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.
Radhika Goyal is Author of Taxconcept Gurugram head office, for deeply reported tax, gst and income tax articles on issues that matter. He splits her time between New Delhi and Bengaluru, and has worked as a reporter, a podcaster and an editor for publications across India.