IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment year : 2019-20 Sanket Subhash Mehta ITO, Ward 1(1), Plot No.50, Shambhoo Mahadev, Aurangabad Vs.

Nagar Shambhoo Banglow, Aurangabad – 431001 PAN: AIYPM1442N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Prashant Ghumare Department by : Shri Arvind Renge, Addl. CIT (virtual)

Date of hearing : 05-03-2026 Date of pronouncement : 09-03-2026

O R D E R

PER R.K. PANDA, VP:

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

27.10.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2019-20.

2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in dismissing the appeal on account of delay in filing of the same.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 01.08.2019 declaring total income of Rs.26,88,626/-. Subsequently information was received that the assessee has claimed bogus refund by claiming exemption u/s 10 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened as per the provisions of section 147 of the Act and a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee was an employee of Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt Ltd, located at Aurangabad. The company during the relevant financial year decided to cease manufacturing and close down the undertaking owing to long term loss of product demand. Therefore, the company decided to close down its undertaking on 09.01.2019 and introduced a financial settlement scheme for all the permanent employees of the company to provide them with severance package on loss of their employments. After considering the various submissions made by the assessee from time to time the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 20.02.2024 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.32,39,073/- wherein he made addition of Rs.34,591/- which was claimed by the assessee as deduction u/s 80C of the Act due to inability of the assessee to substantiate the same with documentary evidence. Similarly the Assessing Officer also rejected the claim of exempt income of Rs.5 lakhs u/s 10(10C) in absence of any valid explanation /

documentary evidence which is the subject matter of appeal.

4. Subsequently the assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act wherein the Assessing Officer granted certain relief.

5. Since the assessee filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a delay of 203 days, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the same on account of delay and thereby confirmed the disallowance of Rs.5 lakhs claimed by the assessee as exempt income u/s 10(10C) of the Act.

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

7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not intentional and the assessee was pursuing remedial measures u/s 154 of the Act before the Assessing Officer. Since the assessee did not get any relief from the Assessing Officer, therefore, on the advice of the concerned CA he filed the appeal with a delay of 203 days before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. Relying on various decisions he submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC should not have dismissed the appeal on account of delay and should have decided the appeal on merit since the various other employees of the said company who received identical amounts have got relief from the Tribunal and in some cases even from the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. He accordingly submitted that he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with a direction to condone the delay in filing of the appeal and decide the issue on merit.

8. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) /

NFAC.

9. I have heard the rival arguments made by bo