Delay Condoned: ITAT Pune Orders Re-Examination After Wrong Double Addition in ITR
The present appeal has been filed by Sujit Vitthal Shinde (Appellant) against the Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Pune (Respondent), in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune Benches “B”, Pune, before Dr Manish Borad (Accountant Member) and Shri Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member). The case is related to the assessment year 2021-22 and was decided on November 13, 2025. The appellant challenged an order dated July 08, 2022, passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Vadodara.
Background of Case:
On March 11, 2022, the assessee filed his income tax return (ITR) for the assessment year 2021-22, declaring the total income of Rs. 37,99,450. The return was processed under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act on July 08, 2022, making some automatic adjustments, increasing his income from Rs. 37,99,450 to Rs. 70,52,250.
The assessee aggrieved with the action of the Assessing Officer (AO) then filed an appeal before the CIT(A); however, the appeal was filed 18 months late to the statutory deadline, which was really late. In conclusion, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee without even examining the issues and did not accept the delay.
The assessee thereafter approached the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune; however, this appeal was also filed 75 days late. The assessee filed a plea for condonation of delay and also attached an Affidavit stating on support of his plea stating he could not file an appeal timely because the income tax portal was not responding properly and rectification attempts failed.
ITAT’s Decision:
When the ITAT Pune analysed the reason given by the assessee behind the delay in filing the appeal, it found the reason was genuine and hence allowed condonation of the delay.
Additionally, the tribunal ruled that the delay before CIT(A) was also not intentional, and the taxpayer did not gain anything by delaying. Hence, the CIT(A) should have accepted the appeal.
The Tribunal noticed that the taxpayer had already reported income under House Property, Capital Gains and Other Sources, totalling Rs. 32,52,795. Due to a mistake in choosing the correct field in the ITR, the CPC added the same income again under “Business Income”, which caused double taxation.
In conclusion to the aforesaid findings, the tribunal remanded the case to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration and directed them to check if the income already declared under the correct heads was added again by mistake. If yes, the AO must remove the duplicate addition.
The assessee has been instructed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer (AO), update the email and phone number on the ITBA portal, and timely attend the scheduled hearings.
Final Order
In the final order, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s order and sent the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh verification.
Result: The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Citation: Sujit Vitthal Shinde Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Pune (ITAT Pune); ITA No.100/PUN/2025; 13/11/2025; 2021-22
