Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) for AY 2020-21 was dismissed as time-barred due to a delay of 162 days in filing. The assessee attributed the delay to the negligence of a previous tax consultant who failed to inform them about the assessment order and notice of demand. A subsequent appeal to NFAC was also rejected due to a procedural lapse (failure to upload condonation of delay letter).
Held
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to demonstrate "sufficient cause" for the inordinate delay of 162 days, stating that the explanation provided was vague and unsubstantiated by verifiable facts. The ITAT reiterated that ignorance of the law is no excuse and the assessment order was duly served electronically.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) and subsequently the ITAT were justified in dismissing the appeal as time-barred due to the assessee's failure to demonstrate "sufficient cause" for a 162-day delay in filing under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
250, 249(2), 249(3), 147, 144, 148, 156, 282, 51, 2, 10(20)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J (SMC
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN& SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Date of Hearing 27.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.12.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
1. 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. Ashfaq vs. State Transport Tribunal, U.P., AIR 1976 SC 2161, 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 Federation Ltd. vs. Shripati Pandurang Khada, (1989) Supp (1) 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 Ltd., AIR 1995 Guj 29, 43 (FB), Calicut Trading Co. vs. Deputy 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 2.5 The appellant has to show sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on the last day of limitation and must explain the delay made thereafter, day by day, till the actual date of the filing of the appeal. In other words, the whole of the delay must be explained [see, Ramlal v Rewa Coal fields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, 364; Sitaram Ramcharan v. M.N. Nagarshana, (1960) 1 SCR 875, 889 = AIR 1960 SC 260, 265- 66; J.B. Advani& Co., Pr. Debi, AIR 1978 SC 537, 542; Saoorajmall Nagarmal v. Golden Fibre& Products, AIR 1969 Cal 381, 384; Bhaktipada Majhi vs. SDO, AIR 1971 Cal 204].
2.6 However, while deciding the prayer for condonation of delay, the authority cannot ignore or give a go-by to the basic principle that the burden to prove the existence of sufficient cause is always upon the applicant and there is no presumption that the delay occasioned in the filing of the appeal, etc. is always bona fide and the authority must in all cases condone the delay as a matter of course. Thus, where the applicant has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected [Classic Ispat Pvt. Ltd. v. Janak Steel Tubes Ltd. (1998) 93 Comp Cas 165, 167, 169 (Punj)]. Reference may also be made to Girdhar Lal M. Pittle vs. Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction [(1998) 94 Comp Cas 225, 228 (Del).
2.7 In this case the appeal is filed by delay of 162 days. The appellant has given the following reasons for delay in filing of the appeal:
1. Hemchand C. Patil, hereby submit this application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the assessment order dated 08/01/2025 passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 1448 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the notice of demand under Section 156 dated 08/01/2025, served on 08/01/2025, for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21. 1. Details of the Applicant:
Name: Hemchand C. Patil 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 jurisdiction 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 jurisdiction 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,
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;-
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
The email address available in the last income tax return furnished by the addressee, or 3. In the case of addressee being a company, email address of the company as available on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs, or 4. Any email address made available by the addressee to income tax authority or any person authorised by such income tax authority.
(3) The Principal Director General of Income Tax (Systems) or the Director General of Income Tax (Systems) shall specify the procedure, formats and standards for ensuring secure transmission of electronic communication and shall also be responsible for formulating and implementing appropriate security, archival and retrieval policies in relation to such communication."
2.8.1 Hence, electronic service of order and notice is valid and the explanation given by the appellant not amount to "sufficient cause" within the meaning of section 249 of the I.T Act. Hence, the delay in filing the appeal of 162 days cannot be accepted.
2.9 Hence, in view of these facts and on the strength of the judicial decisions referred on the pre pages the delay in filing the appeal does not merit condonation and the appeal is treated to be filed late with reference to the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act. The same is accordingly dismissed without going into the merits of the case.
As a result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
3. After having gone through the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and hearing Ld. DR, we found that assessee could not demonstrate or prove on record the sufficient cause in “not filing the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) within 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.
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 अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 1. ""थ" / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु"(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,मु"बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 6. 11 Hemchand Chintaman Patil, Thane आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, स"ािपत "ित ////
1. उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst.