IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment year : 2018-19 Ravinanda Landmarks Unit 3 ITO, Ward 5(1), Pune D-38, Vastushree Complex, Vs.

Hyde Park, Market Yard, Pune – 411037 PAN: AAOFR1700Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Suhas Bora Department by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 12-08-2025 Date of pronouncement : 04-09-2025

O R D E R

PER R.K. PANDA, VP:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

28.03.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2018-19 dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing of the same by

1337 days.

2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 27.10.2018 declaring total income of Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were issued and served on the assessee, in response to which the assessee filed the requisite details.

3. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has paid an amount of Rs.9 lakhs being interest @ 18% on sarafi loan from Satav Landmarks LLP, paid interest @ 15% on loan of Rs.76,62,742/- to Pandharpur Bank. However, the assessee has advanced interest free loans and advances to other parties amounting to Rs.6,12,30,240/- out of the booking advances received. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee and observing that the assessee is not charging any interest on advances whereas paying huge interest on borrowed loans the Assessing Officer applied interest @ 15% on the amounts advanced free of interest and made addition of Rs.91,84,536/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,06,78,630/- by passing the order u/s 143(3) on 19.04.2021.

4. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on 16.12.2024. Since there was a delay in filing of the appeal by 1337 days, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC observing that there was no sufficient reason given by the assessee for filing of the said appeal and relying on various decisions dismissed the same being barred by limitation.

5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset drew the attention of the Bench to the reasons given for such delay which is due to wrong advice given by the Chartered Accountant. He submitted that if the number of days falling during the period of Covid-19 is excluded as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Miscellaneous Application No.21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 in Re : Cognizance for Extension of Limitation with Miscellaneous Application No.29 of 2022 in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, order dated 10.01.2022, the number of days of delay is only 931 days and not 1337 days as mentioned by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC.

7. Referring to the demand notice, he submitted that initially the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3) has raised a demand of Rs.6,72,477/- only for which the concerned Chartered Accountant advised the assessee not to file any appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. However, when the assessee received notice u/s 226(3) dated 11.11.2024, the assessee came to know of the huge demand for which he consulted another Chartered Accountant who advised him to file the appeal immediately.

8. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vijay Vishin Meghani vs. DCIT (2017) 398 ITR 250 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 2984 days by taking a plea that he was wron