Your first appeal is more than a year late because of illness. Is it too late?
Not necessarily. Illness during the pandemic was accepted as sufficient cause, a delay of about thirteen to fourteen months was condoned, and all three appeals were sent back to the CIT(A) to be decided on merits.
Decided by the ITAT (ITAT Pune — Dr Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member)) on 2025-01-23, reported as ITA Nos. 2086 to 2088/PUN/2024. It bears on section 249, section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Appeals matters.
This is what Katiji looks like applied to an ordinary small trader with a very large estimated addition. It also shows the two things running together: the delay was condoned because there was a real case to hear underneath it.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee, a fruit seller working on commission, returned income of Rs 8,21,210 for assessment year 2018-19. In limited scrutiny the Assessing Officer noticed cash deposits of Rs 9,79,93,295 in bank accounts and, absent supporting documents, added Rs 78,39,472 computed at 8% of turnover, followed by penalties. The appeals to the CIT(A) were filed about thirteen to fourteen months late owing to COVID-19 related illness of the assessee and his family.
The Tribunal treated the illness as sufficient cause, condoned the delay in filing the first appeals and remanded all three appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the sources of the cash deposits and to contest the penalties.
Applying Katiji, the Bench proceeded on the footing that where substantial justice and procedural technicality are pitted against each other, substantial justice must prevail. The delay was attributable to the pandemic and the ill-health of the assessee and his family rather than to any deliberate default, and the assessee derived no advantage from filing late. Since the addition had been made on an estimated basis without the assessee being able to place material on record, the appeals deserved to be decided on merits.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNot necessarily. Illness during the pandemic was accepted as sufficient cause, a delay of about thirteen to fourteen months was condoned, and all three appeals were sent back to the CIT(A) to be decided on merits. This was decided by the ITAT (ITAT Pune — Dr Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member)) and bears on section 249, section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA Nos. 2086 to 2088/PUN/2024. This is what Katiji looks like applied to an ordinary small trader with a very large estimated addition. It also shows the two things running together: the delay was condoned because there was a real case to hear underneath it. If it applies to you, the first step is this: File the appeal even if it is badly late — the condonation application is the first ground, not a bar.
The assessee, a fruit seller working on commission, returned income of Rs 8,21,210 for assessment year 2018-19. In limited scrutiny the Assessing Officer noticed cash deposits of Rs 9,79,93,295 in bank accounts and, absent supporting documents, added Rs 78,39,472 computed at 8% of turnover, followed by penalties. The appeals to the CIT(A) were filed about thirteen to fourteen months late owing to COVID-19 related illness of the assessee and his family. The matter was decided on 2025-01-23 by the ITAT (ITAT Pune — Dr Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member)). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The Tribunal treated the illness as sufficient cause, condoned the delay in filing the first appeals and remanded all three appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the sources of the cash deposits and to contest the penalties.
Applying Katiji, the Bench proceeded on the footing that where substantial justice and procedural technicality are pitted against each other, substantial justice must prevail. The delay was attributable to the pandemic and the ill-health of the assessee and his family rather than to any deliberate default, and the assessee derived no advantage from filing late. Since the addition had been made on an estimated basis without the assessee being able to place material on record, the appeals deserved to be decided on merits. The decision followed or applied Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v Mst. Katiji.
It was decided by the ITAT on 2025-01-23 and is reported as ITA Nos. 2086 to 2088/PUN/2024. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 249, section 250, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The Tribunal treated the illness as sufficient cause, condoned the delay in filing the first appeals and remanded all three appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the sources of the cash deposits and to contest the penalties. It arises in Appeals matters, on section 249, section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by ITAT Pune — Dr Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member). Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Set out the cause with dates and, where illness is pleaded, whatever record exists. Prepare the merits at the same time; benches condone delay more readily where the underlying case is arguable.
The judgment itself could not be reached, so no check was possible. No later decision applying or following this order has been found, and no reporter citation exists for it, so there is nothing to search on beyond the appeal numbers. The appeal numbers, the date and the Bench are as the order itself carries them and have not been corroborated against any report. Nothing has been found that narrows the Commissioner (Appeals)' power under s.249(3) to admit a belated appeal for sufficient cause. That is the absence of contrary authority, which is not the same as support, and it should not be presented as though it were. The order does not need later treatment to be useful, because it does not lay down anything new. It applies Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji, that where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other substantial justice must prevail, to a delay of about thirteen to fourteen months caused by pandemic illness of the assessee and his family. Condonation always turns on the material actually pleaded, and the illness relied on here was evidenced before the Tribunal; a delay of the same length with nothing behind it would be decided differently. Two limits are worth stating to a client. This is a Tribunal order and it binds nobody outside the case. And it decides nothing at all on the merits: the delays were condoned and all three appeals were remitted to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication, so the cash deposits, the estimated addition and the penalties are all still to be fought. For a year governed by the Income-tax Act 2025 the successors of ss.249 and 250 should be identified before the application is drafted; that correspondence has not been established here. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
ON THE PARTICULARS. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune 'A' Bench; ITA Nos. 2086 to 2088/PUN/2024; assessment year 2018-19; heard 20 January 2025 and pronounced 23 January 2025; Vinay Bhamore, Judicial Member, and Manish Borad, Accountant Member, on the signature block. There is no reporter citation. READ WHAT THIS DECIDED NARROWLY. The Tribunal condoned delays of about thirteen to fourteen months and sent all three appeals back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo adjudication. Nothing was decided about the cash deposits of Rs 9,79,93,295, the addition of Rs 78,39,472 or the penalties of Rs 1,50,000 under s.271B and Rs 13,26,143 under s.270A, and the assessee still has to make that case. The value of the order to a practitioner is the condonation reasoning and nothing else. WHY THE DELAY WAS CONDONED, which is the part that has to be reproduced in a fresh application. The delay was attributable to the pandemic and to the ill-health of the assessee and his family rather than to any deliberate default; the assessee derived no advantage from filing late; and the addition underneath the appeal had been made on an estimated basis, at eight per cent of turnover, without the assessee having been able to place material on record. The Bench treated the second and third of those as reinforcing the first - there was a real case to hear underneath the delay. Condonation always turns on the material actually pleaded, and the illness relied on here was evidenced. ON THE UNDERLYING ASSESSMENT, so that the scale is clear. The assessee is a fruit seller working on commission who returned income of Rs 8,21,210 for assessment year 2018-19. In limited scrutiny the Assessing Officer noticed cash deposits of Rs 9,79,93,295 in bank accounts and, in the absence of supporting documents, added eight per cent of that turnover. Penalties followed. Whether the deposits are turnover at all is the question the Commissioner (Appeals) now has to decide, and it has never been examined. ON THE SECTIONS TAGGED AGAINST THIS ENTRY. The only Income-tax Act sections the order itself names are 250, 271B and 270A. Section 249 is carried here as a practice tag, because s.249(3) is the power under which the Commissioner (Appeals) admits a belated appeal and it is the head a reader will look under; the order does not name it, and the tag should not be read as a claim about what the order holds. Section 246A is not tagged, because the order does not mention it and the case is not about which orders are appealable. A Tribunal decision, and condonation always turns on the facts pleaded. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The Tribunal treated the illness as sufficient cause, condoned the delay in filing the first appeals and remanded all three appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the sources of the cash deposits and to contest the penalties.
TaxSphere, “Mohd. Farooque Mohd. Rafique Bagban v ITO”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/mohd-farooque-bagban-v-ito/ (validity last checked 2026-08-19)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
No return was filed and no advance tax was paid, but the Commissioner (Appeals) admitted the appeal and decided it. The department now says the appeal was never maintainable. Can the Tribunal presume that the Commissioner (Appeals) exercised her power to exempt?
Is payment of admitted tax under s.249(4) a condition that must be satisfied again when the appeal goes on to the Tribunal?
Your appeal is late. How strictly will 'sufficient cause' be read?
Does the tax to be paid before an appeal is admitted under s.249(4) include interest under ss.234A, 234B and 234C?
