Archive · 1 Sep 2026
ITAT Pune Revives Senior Citizen’s Tax Appeal After Wife’s Death
Chandrakant Krishanaji Phule was late in filing a tax appeal by 191 days.
He said this happened because his wife was seriously ill with cancer and later died.
The tax appellate authority had rejected his appeal because it was late.
It did not examine whether the tax calculation was correct.
The ITAT Pune said important questions in the case still needed to be considered.
It told the authority to accept the late appeal and hear both sides.
The tribunal did not decide that Phule owed no tax.
It only gave him another chance to explain his case.
The ITAT Pune directed authorities to condone a 191-day delay in Chandrakant Krishanaji Phule’s tax appeal.
Phule said his wife’s cancer illness and death on 7 January 2023 caused severe emotional distress.
The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without examining Phule’s substantive tax objections.
The disputed assessment included ₹80,335 as unexplained investment and ₹65.60 lakh as long-term capital gain.
The tribunal ordered the appeal to be heard on merits but did not remove the tax additions.
- Who
- Chandrakant Krishanaji Phule, a Pune-based senior citizen, and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune.
- What
- The ITAT directed the tax appellate authority to condone a 191-day delay and hear Phule’s appeal on its merits.
- When
- The ITAT order was pronounced on 28 August 2026; Phule’s wife died on 7 January 2023, and the case concerns assessment year 2018-19.
- Where
- Pune, before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
- Why
- Phule attributed the delay to his wife’s cancer illness and death, while the tribunal said substantive issues should not be rejected solely on a technical limitation ground.
Taxpayer’s Position
Tax Authority’s Position
Reason for delay
Taxpayer’s Position
Phule said his wife’s cancer illness and death caused mental and emotional distress that prevented him from filing the appeal on time.
Tax Authority’s Position
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not accept the explanation as sufficient or reasonable cause for the 191-day delay.
Whether the appeal should be heard
Taxpayer’s Position
Phule argued that his substantive objections, including disputes over capital-gains calculations and property valuation, required examination.
Tax Authority’s Position
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on limitation grounds without examining the substantive tax issues.
Tax treatment
Taxpayer’s Position
Phule disputed the long-term capital-gains computation, the stamp-duty valuation, and the treatment of ₹80,335 in interest as unexplained investment.
Tax Authority’s Position
The assessing officer had assessed ₹80,335 as unexplained investment and ₹65.60 lakh as long-term capital gain.
- Taxpayer
- Chandrakant Krishanaji Phule
- Assessment year
- 2018-19
- Delay
- 191 days
- Property sales
- ₹2.62 crore and ₹25.45 lakh
- Tax additions
- ₹80,335 as unexplained investment and ₹65.60 lakh as long-term capital gain
- Assessed total income
- ₹91.85 lakh
- Tribunal direction
- Condone the delay and decide the appeal after hearing the parties