What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's casual and negligent approach in filing the appeal and previous proceedings does not warrant condonation of delay. The appeal was not admitted due to the lack of a sufficient cause for the delay.

The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 665 days without a condonation petition. The assessee also failed to provide necessary submissions to the CIT(A) in the previous proceeding, leading to an ex-parte order.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned without a reasonable cause and proper petition. Whether the assessee's conduct demonstrates sufficient cause for the delay.

Reliable Constructions, Goregaon vs DCIT21.3, Parel | ITAT Mumbai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: D BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA 9137/MUM/2025 िनधा�रणवष� िनधा�रणवष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18) िनधा�रणवष� िनधा�रणवष� Reliable Construction DCIT 21.3, MUMBAI 1st Floor, Rohini CHS, Building Piramal Chamber, Lalbaugh, No. Goregaon West, Mumbai- Vs. Parel, Mumbai 400104, Maharashtra Mumbai-400012, Maharashtra अपीलाथ� अपीलाथ� Appellant अपीलाथ� अपीलाथ� ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AAIFR7192N अपीलाथ� अपीलाथ��ारा/Appellant represented by: None अपीलाथ� अपीलाथ� ��थ��ारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Mahesh Londhe; Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of conclusion of hearing: 05-Aug-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/ Date of pronouncement: 07-Aug-2026 आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश आदेश PER: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2017-18, date of order 07.12.2023. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 22(3), Mumbai (for brevity ‘Ld. AO’), order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, date of order 20.12.2019.

The registry informed that the appeal was filed with delay for 665 days. On perusal of the appeal set we find that no condonation petition was duly filed by the assessee for seeking the condonation of delay. None was present on behalf of the assessee. Considering this, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex-parte quo for assessee after hearing the Ld. DR

The Ld. DR argued that in absence of reasonable cause the appeal should not be admitted. He contended that in the impugned appellate proceeding the assessee miserably failed to file necessary submission as requisitioned to assessee by the Ld. CIT(A). So, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed.

We have considered the DR’s submission and perused the record. The impugned appellate order was passed ex-parte and the assessee was unable to submit requisitioned documents before the Ld. CIT(A). During filing of appeal the assessee was failed to file the petition for condonation of delay for 665days. The grossly negligent attitude of assessee is further discernible from for non-filing of condonation petition before ITAT. It is trite law that where a case has been presented in the Bench beyond limitation, the petitioner has to explain the Bench as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the Bench within limitation. In this connection, reference may be made to the following decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj Vs. Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81, held that. "9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the viewpoint of a reasonable standard of a cautious man.

In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the court that he was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the court should not allow the application for condonation of delay. The court has to examine whether the mistake is bona fide or was merely a device to cover an ulterior purpose. (See Manindra Land and Building Corpn. Ltd. v. Bhutnath Banerjee [AIR 1964 SC 1336], Mata Din v. A. Narayanan[(1969) 2 SCC 770], Parimal v. Veena [(2011) 3 SCC 545] and Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corpn. of Brihan Mumbai [(2012) 5 SCC 157 ].)"

Consequently, we respectfully follow the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The casual approach adopted by the assessee cannot be accepted. Accordingly, we are not inclined to admit the appeal, and the captioned appeal is dismissed as time-barred.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.9137/Mum/2026 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07th day of August 2026.

Sd/- Sd/-

(OM PRAKASH KANT) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 07/08/2026 Soumili, PS

Copy of the Order forwarded to: अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 1. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 2. आयकरआयु� CIT 3. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, 4. Mumbai गाड�फाइल/Guard file. 5.

BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI

RELIABLE CONSTRUCTIONS,GOREGAON, MUMBAI vs. DCIT21.3, PAREL, 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