What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any sufficient cause or explanation for the delay, the discretion to condone the delay cannot be exercised. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as being barred by limitation.

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a significant delay of 635 days. No application for condonation of delay or explanation for the delay was provided by the assessee. The assessee also remained absent during the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned in the absence of any explanation or sufficient cause shown by the assessee.

Jind Haryana Border Toll Road… vs Income Tax Ward 6(3)(1) | ITAT Mumbai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘F’ BENCH

For Respondent: Shri Nishant Samaiya

Hearing: 06/08/2026Pronounced: 17/08/2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], arising out of the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15.

2 ITA No.2089/Mum/2026 Jind Haryana Border Toll Road Pvt. Ltd.

When the appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have, therefore, proceeded to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned DR and on the basis of the material available on record.

We have heard the learned DR and perused the material available on record. The impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) was passed on 20.03.2024, whereas the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 635 days. Admittedly, no application seeking condonation of delay has been filed; nor is there any affidavit or other material explaining the circumstances which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. Even before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee to explain such delay.

It is well recognised that delay may be condoned where sufficient cause is shown and the explanation is reasonable and bona fide. However, the present case is not one where the sufficiency of an explanation is required to be examined; rather, there is no explanation at all for the delay of 635 days. In the absence of any cause being shown, there is no basis on which the discretion to condone the delay can be exercised. We, therefore, decline to condone the delay and consequently dismiss the appeal as barred by limitation, without going into the grounds raised on merits.

3 ITA No.2089/Mum/2026 Jind Haryana Border Toll Road Pvt. Ltd.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced on 17th August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 17/08/2026 KARUNA, sr.ps

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

JIND HARYANA BORDER TOLL ROAD PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX WARD 6(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments