HEMCHAND CHINTAMAN PATIL,THANE vs. ITO, THANE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“J (SMC)” BENCH MUMBAI

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER&
SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hemchand Chintaman Patil,
202, Lovely Palace No.2,
Kharigaon,
B.
P.
Road,
Bhayander (East),
Thane - 401105. Vs.
Income Tax Officer
Qureshi Mansion,
2nd
Floor,
Gokhale
Road,
Naupada,
Teen
Haath Naka, Thane (W),
Thane – 400602. PAN/GIR No. AMAPP3180E
(Applicant)
(Respondent)

Assessee by None
Revenue by Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. DR.)

Date of Hearing
27.11.2025
Date of Pronouncement
03.12.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dt. 07.08.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, when the case was called repeatedly. From the file, we noticed that the notice of the present hearing was already issued

2
Hemchand Chintaman Patil, Thane to the assessee through RPAD and also through e-mail id. pandey_anand68@yahoo.com as per the report of registry. Since the notice was issued on the address given by the assessee and 30 days have already been lapsed from the date of issuance of notice therefore while drawing inference under the General Clauses Act, it is presumed that service has been validly effected upon the assessee, therefore considering these circumstances assessee is proceeded ex-parte.
3. From the records we noticed that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) as the same was time barred the operative portion of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced herein below:
2. Condonation of delay
2.1 As per From No. 35, the appeal is stated to be filed out of time. It is seen that while the impugned order sought to be challenged in this appeal was passed on 08.01.2025, the appeal has been filed only on 19.07.2025 after a delay of 162
days. Thus there is substantial delay in filing of the appeal.
2.2 As per section 249(2) of the Act, the appeal has to be filed within 30 days of the service of the order to the appellant. It is not the case of the appellant that the order was not served to him. Section 249(3) gives the CIT (Appeals) powers to condone the delay if the appellant has sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. The word used in section 249 (3) is "may" and not "shall" and the first appellate authority is given a discretion to admit an appeal even after the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed under section 249(2). The discretion is to be exercised not on any arbitrary or fanciful grounds or whim or caprice of the first appellate authority, but 3
Hemchand Chintaman Patil, Thane it is to be a judicial discretion. The discretion is obviously to be exercised where "sufficient cause" for not presenting the appeal within time is made out by the appellant [Cf. Mohd.
2162]. Before dismissing an appeal as time-barred, the appellant should be afforded an opportunity of explaining the delay, which has been done in the instant case. [Cf.
Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton Growers' Marketing
SCC 226, 23].
2.3 In its essence, the phrase "sufficient cause" is not a question of principle, but is a question of fact. Hence, whether to condone the delay or not, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case since
'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay depends only on the facts placed by the applicant before the authority concerned. In the instant case the appellant has not been able to produce any facts to show that he was prevented by sufficient cause for filing the appeal in time. [Cf. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad v. Voltas
CCT, 91998) 110 STC 195, 199 (Karn). It is the duty of the appellant to place the relevant facts that there was a sufficient cause for delay in filing an appeal. In the absence of such facts, no presumption can be drawn that there must a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time [ Union of India v. Brij Lal Prabhu Dayal, AIR 1999 Raj
216, 221].
2.4 The sufficient cause within the contemplation of these provisions must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. The cause for delay in filing the appeal which by due care and attention could have been avoided cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of these provisions [Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962
SC 361; Ashutosh Bhadra v. Jatindra Mohan, AIR 1954
Ca238; Soorajmall Nagarmal v. Golden Fibre& Products, AIR
1969 Cal 381, 384].

4
Hemchand Chintaman Patil, Thane

5
Hemchand Chintaman Patil, Thane

PAN: AMAPP3180E
Address: Plot No. 01, Anand Niwas, Goddev Gaon, Near Vithal
Mandir, Bhayander (E), Taluka and Dist. Thane
Assessment Year: 2020-21
2. Details of the Order Appealed Against:
Assessment Order: u/s 147 r/w 144 and 1448 dated
08/01/2025
Notice of Demand: u/s 156 dated 08/01/2025, served on 08/01/2025
Due Date for Filing Appeal: 07/02/2025
Date of Filing Previous Appeal: 02/07/2025
Date of Filing Present Appeal: 19/07/2025
Period of Delay: 161 days
3. Reasons for Delay:
The delay in filing the appeal was due to circumstances beyond my control, constituting sufficient cause under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
I had entrusted all income tax matters, including the assessment proceedings for Α.Υ. 2020-21, to tax consultant.
The consultant failed to inform me about the assessment order and notice of demand dated 08/01/2025, despite being responsible for monitoring and communicating such developments.
Being entirely dependent on the consultant and not well- versed in tax laws, I remained unaware of the order and the appeal deadline until June 2025, when I engaged a new tax consultant.
The new consultant reviewed the case on the e-filing portal
(www.incometax.gov.in) and discovered the assessment order,

6
Hemchand Chintaman Patil, Thane after which immediate steps were taken to file an appeal on 02/07/2025. The previous appeal was rejected by the NFAC due to the inadvertent failure to upload a condonation of delay letter. No opportunity was provided to rectify this procedural lapse, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice.
The additional delay of 16 days (from 02/07/2025 to 19/07/2025) occurred due to the time required to consult the new tax professional, review the rejection order, and prepare this fresh appeal with all necessary documents to avoid further procedural errors.
The delay was unintentional and attributable to the negligence of the previous consultant and the procedural rejection of the earlier appeal, for which I should not be penalized.
2.8 As per the facts, the order was passed on 08.01.2025
while the appeal was filed on 19.07.2025 which is delay of 162 days. In this case, the appellant in Form No. 35 in Col. 15
has stated that that he had entrusted all the Income-tax matters to a tax consultant and he failed to inform him about assessment order and notice of demand and further added that he was not well-versed in tax laws, therefore, missed the deadline to file the appeal. He further stated that new consultant filed the appeal on 02.07.2025 shows that the delay was not intentional or with bad intentions. The same was rejected by NFAC due to inadvertent failure to upload the condonation of delay application, therefore, delay of 16 days occurred due to time required to consult the new tax professional to review the rejection order and prepare fresh appeal. Hence, in view of the above, the Appellant requested that the delay in filing the appeal be excused under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. It is a settled position of law that ignorantia juri iction non excusat, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
The appellant's explanation, being vague and unsupported by verifiable facts, does not meet the threshold of "sufficient cause" as required for condoning such an inordinate delay of 162 days. This is apparent that the explanation does not have substance and that the appellant has not discharged

7
Hemchand Chintaman Patil, Thane the onus of "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249 of the I.T Act. It is a settled position of law that ignorantia juri iction non excusal, ignorance of the law is no excuse. The appellant's explanation, being vague and unsupported by verifiable facts, does not meet the threshold of "sufficient cause" as required for condoning such an inordinate delay of 162 days. Further, it is noted that the assessment order was duly served upon the appellant through electronic means on registered e-mail as per Rule 127 of Income Tax Rules, 1962. The Rule-127 is reproduced as under :-
"(1) For the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 282, the addresses (including the address for electronic mail or electronic mail message) to which a notice or summons or requisition or order or any other communication under the Act
(hereafter in this rule referred to as 'communication') may be delivered or transmitted shall be as per sub- rule (2).
(2) The addresses referred to in sub-rule(1) shall be- a)For communications delivered or transmitted in the matter provided in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 282-
1. The address available in the PAN database of the addressee, or 2. The address available in the Income Tax Return to which the communication relates, or 3. The address available in the last income tax return furnished by the addressee,
4. In the case of addressee being a company, address of registered office as available on the website of Ministry of corporate Affairs.
Provide that the communication shall not be delivered or transmitted to the address mentioned in items (i) to (iv) where the addressee furnishes in writing any other address for the purposes of communication to the income tax authority or any person authorised by such authority issuing the 8
Hemchand Chintaman Patil, Thane communication Provide further that where the communication cannot be delivered or transmitted to the address mentioned in items (i) or (iv) or any other address furnished by the address as referred to in first proviso, the communication shall be delivered or transmitted to the following address;-
1. The address of the assessee as available with a banking company or a co- operative bank or which the Banking
Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) applies (including any bank or banking institution referred to in section 51 of the said Act) or 2. The address of the assessee as available with the Post
Master General as referred to in clause (j) of section 2 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of 1898), or 3. The address of the assessee as available with the insurer as defined in clause (9) of section 2 of the Insurance Act, 1938
(4 of 1938) or 4. The address of the assessee as furnished in Form No-61 to the Director of Income
Tax
(Intelligence and Criminal
Investigation) or to the Joint
Director of Income
Tax
(Intelligence and Criminal Investigation) under sub-rule (1) of Rule 114D, or 5. The address of the assessee as furnished in Form No-61A under sub rule (1) of rule 114E to the Director of Income Tax
(intelligence and Criminal Investigation), or 6. The address of the assessee as available in the records of the Government, or 7. The address of the assessee as available in the records of a local authority as referred to in the Explanation below clause
(20) of section 10 of the Act]
b)For communication delivered or transmitted electronically-
1. Email address available in the income tax return furnished by the addressee to which the communication relates, or 9
Hemchand Chintaman Patil, Thane

10
Hemchand Chintaman Patil, Thane time”. Therefore Ld. CIT(A) rightly dismissed the said appeal.
4. Even otherwise no new facts or circumstances have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we see no reasons to interfere into or to deviate from the lawful findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground raised and by the assessee stands dismissed.
5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03.12.2025 (OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA) (SANDEEP GOSAIN)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated 03/12/2025

KRK, Sr. PS

आदेश की ितिलिप अेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. थ / The Respondent.
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु / The CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु(अपील) / Concerned CIT
5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,मुबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.

11
Hemchand Chintaman Patil, Thane

आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER,
सािपत ित ////