Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed four appeals before the ITAT challenging orders of the NFAC/CIT(A) for various assessment years. The appeals were filed with a significant delay, and an application for condonation of delay was submitted.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 656 days, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities, and imposed a cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT can be condoned in the interest of substantial justice, and if so, what is the consequence for the proceedings before the lower appellate authority.
Sections Cited
250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 ORDER Per Sandeep Gosain, JM:
These four appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned orders 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 2008-09, 2012-13 & 2017-18.
Since all the issues involved in these four appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have been clubbed, heard together and consolidated order is being passed for 2 Devang Dilip Vyas, Mumbai. the sake of convenience and brevity. We shall take A.Y 2008-09 as lead case and facts narrated therein.
From the records, we noticed that the assessee was ex-parte before the Ld.AO and Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal. How3ever before us, the same was filed beyond the period of limitation (i.e delay of 656 days) and consequently an application for condonation of delay has been filed
We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record and the orders passed by the revenue authorities.
From the records, we noticed that assessee has filed a detailed explanation thereby explaining the reason for seeking condonation of delay. The assessee has mentioned reasons for none compliance before the CIT(A) in affidavit as under:
Affidavit for Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal before Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai against the Order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) through National Faceless Appeal Centre, dated 24.07.2023. 1) I, Devang Dilip Vyas, aged 52 years, son of Dilip Vyas, having PAN AFEPV3982P ま at present residing at 1103, Dheeraj Enclave Tower-1/B, Siddharth Nagar, Borivali East 400066, do solemnly affirm and state on oath as under: 2. That the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dtd. 24.07.2023 passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC for AY 2012-13 was uploaded on the Income Tax Portal.
3 Devang Dilip Vyas, Mumbai.
3) That I was not informed by the Hon'ble CIT(A), NFAC about the said order passed under section 250 of the Act either by registered EMAIL or through Post or any other mode of communication except uploaded on the Portal for which I was not aware. The case was entrusted to an Advocate, and I, being unaware of the day-to-day developments in the matter, relied entirely on the counsel for updates
4) That it was only on 21.04.2025, upon receiving a demand notice regarding outstanding dues, I became aware of the situation. Despite my earnest efforts to contact the counsel handling the matter, no response was received. Subsequently, I accessed the Income Tax portal and discovered the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) on 24.07.2023, which was downloaded on 23.04.2025. Immediately thereafter, I engaged new counsel to initiate the process of filing an appeal against the said order.
5) That thereafter, immediately, I filed the appeal on 17.07.2025 before the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai, resulting in a delay of 656 days.
6) That I solemnly affirm that this delay was entirely unintentional and arose due to genuine reasons beyond my control, including lack of awareness of the order and reliance on counsel. There was no deliberate intent on my part to delay the filing of the appeal.
I, Devang Dilip Vyas, the above-named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of para 1 to 6 are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Apart an application has also been filed for seeking condonation of delay.
Appearing the parties at length and considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view, the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., [1987] AIR 1353 (SC), wherein it has been held that were substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non-deliberate delay, then in that eventuality substantial justice is to be preferred. In our view the principals of advancing substantial justice is of 4 Devang Dilip Vyas, Mumbai. prime importance. Hence considering the explanation put forth by the Assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay which occurred in filing the appeal and construing the expression "sufficient cause" liberally we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Subject to cost of Rs. 2,000/- is imposed upon the assessee which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund and a copy of the receipt shall be placed on file before Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Since we have already condoned the delay, and as per records, assessee was ex-parte before Ld. CIT(A) therefore we restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh on merits after providing fair opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to for the A.Y 2008-09 (except variance in figures) and the decision rendered in above paragraph would apply mutatis mutandis for this appeal also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the present appeals also stands allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13/10/2025