PALLAVI VIKRAM CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3694/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 July 2026AY 2015-164 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee, considering her age and lack of tech-savviness, constituted a reasonable cause for the delay. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 169 days. The CIT(A) did not condone the delay, stating no reasonable cause was established. The assessee cited her age (68 years), not being tech-savvy, and an oversight in receiving the email regarding the assessment order as reasons for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was caused by a reasonable cause and should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(2),Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR

Pronounced: 24/07/2026

PER SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 13.01.2026 for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

2.

In spite of issuance of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. The appeal is disposed of based on the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee and on hearing the Ld. DR.

3.

On perusal of the grounds of appeal, we observe that the delay of 169 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was not condoned by the Ld. CIT(A), since according to him, no reasonable cause was established by the assessee in filing the appeal with a delay of 169 days. We have perused the order of the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the petition for condonation of delay filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was reproduced, which is as under:

“It is submitted that in the case of your appellant, the assessment order U/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was passed on May 11, 2023, along with the Notice of Demand for A.Y. 2015-16. It is submitted that, as per the provisions of section 249(2), the appeal before the Honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) shall be filed within 30 days from the date of service of the Notice of Demand. It is submitted that, in the present case, the appeal should have been filed by your appellant on or before June 9, 2023. It is submitted that all correspondence from the Income Tax Department to your appellant is normally received on her personal email address, choksipallavi@gmail.com. It is also submitted that your appellant is currently 68 years old. It is submitted that your appellant is not tech-savvy and the mail related to passing the present order under consideration was skipped by oversight. It is also submitted that the information relating to passing the assessment order on May 11, 2023, came to her knowledge for the first time only after her tax consultant reviewed the Income Tax Portal. It is submitted that the appeal fee of Rs. 1,000 for filing the present appeal was paid accordingly on November 24, 2023. It is submitted that, due to the aforementioned reasons, the filing of the appeal was delayed by 168 days. It is therefore submitted that, considering the provision of section 249(3) of the Act and the age of your appellant, it is prayed to your honor to forgive the delay in filing the present appeal and oblige. Hope your honor accepts the prayer of your appellant.” 4. As could be seen from the above, the assessee explained that she normally receives emails on her personal email address, choksipallavi@gmail.com and that she was at the advanced age of 68 years not a tech-savvy and therefore the email related to passing the present assessment order was skipped by oversight. It was also explained that the information about passing of assessment order came to the knowledge of the assessee only when the tax consultant reviewed the Income Tax Portal. The reasons explained by the assessee constitute a reasonable cause considering the fact that she was at the advanced age of 68 years. We are of the view that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the appeal with a delay of 169 days. In these circumstances, the delay of 169 days in filing the appeal by the assessee is hereby condoned.

5.

Since the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine without adjudicating the grounds of appeal both legal as well as factual by the Ld. CIT(A), this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), who shall decide all the grounds of appeal on merits after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24/07/2026

Sd/- Sd/- MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 24/07/2026p Prabhat Copy to: PALLAVI VIKRAM CHOKSI, 20 MANGAL PRESIDENCY SOCIETY, 7TH NS ROAD, JVPD SCHEME, VILE PARLE 1 (W), MUMBAI-400049, MAHARASHTRA

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL E- 2 ASSESSMENT CENTRE, MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400049, MAHARASHTRA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 249(2)

All 636 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →