YASHWANT HARIBHAU GAIKAR,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 42(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 168/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 July 2026AY 2018-196 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the delay, provided via a sworn affidavit, contained material facts not considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination of the delay condonation application.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a 149-day delay. The assessee, unfamiliar with e-filing and income tax procedures, only became aware of the assessment order upon receiving penalty notices by post.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the delay without considering the assessee's explanation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 254(1),Section 69,Section 271AAC(1),Section 270A,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 21/11/2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short the Ld. CIT(A)] for assessment year 2018-19. The grounds raised by the assessee reproduced as under:

Yashwant Haribabu Gaikar 2 ITA No. 168/MUM/2026

i. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal by not condoning a delay occurred while filing the appeal. ii. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of INR 1,64,35,000 made by the Assessing Officer. The said addition is comprised of INR 1,16,38,000 being long term capital gains and INR 40,00,000 under Section 69 in respect of time deposits in the bank. iii. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest charged under Sections 234A, 234B, 2340 and 234D of the Income tax Act. iv. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the above. v. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter or amend to the above grounds of appeal.

2.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal before the first appellate authority was dismissed solely on the ground that there was a delay of 149 days in filing the appeal, which the Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone. It was submitted that, before this Tribunal, the assessee has placed on record a duly sworn affidavit explaining the circumstances leading to the delay. The affidavit states, inter alia, that the assessee had never previously filed any return of income, was unfamiliar with the electronic mode of communication adopted by the Income-tax Department, and was unaware that notices and orders were being served through the Income-tax portal. It has further been stated that the assessee came to know of the assessment order only upon receipt of penalty notices by post, whereafter he immediately approached a tax consultant, created his e-mail account and

Yashwant Haribabu Gaikar 3 ITA No. 168/MUM/2026

Income-tax portal login, and thereafter filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The impugned order reveals that the Ld. CIT(A) declined to condone the delay on the ground that the assessee had failed to establish sufficient cause or demonstrate bona fide circumstances warranting such condonation. Before us, however, the assessee has, for the first time, filed a sworn affidavit explaining in detail the circumstances which, according to him, prevented him from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. The substance of the explanation is that the assessee is not well educated, had never earlier participated in income-tax proceedings, was not conversant with electronic communications through the Income-tax portal, and remained unaware of the assessment order until the receipt of penalty notices by post. Immediately thereafter, he took steps to obtain professional assistance, created his e-mail account and portal login, and pursued the appellate remedy. For ready reference, the relevant part of affidavit is reproduced as under: “5. As mentioned above, I had never filed my income tax return and therefore, I was not aware that I was required to login on the Income tax Portal to see the e-communication of the notices as well as orders. I am not much educated and not conversant with internet operations, emails, e-logins and income tax assessment proceedings. I did not even receive any communication of any

Yashwant Haribabu Gaikar 4 ITA No. 168/MUM/2026

income tax notices or orders. In view of this, I could not attend any notices of reassessment proceedings as well as income tax order passed against me. When I received the penalty notices from Income tax department under Sections 271AAC(1) and 270A for AY 2018-19 on 24 September 2023 by post, I approached the tax department to find out about these notices and then only I came to know about passing of income tax order against me for AY 2018-19 on 31 March 2023. With the help of my tax consultant, I created my email-id first time only on 25 September 2023. Thereafter, I created my income tax login on 26 September 2023.

6.

As I came to know about the passing of the assessment order only on 24 September 2023, I mentioned the same date as date of service of order while filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on 26 September 2023.

7.

The CIT(A) sent six notices of hearing and I filed my submissions every time. I explained to him at every hearing about not my unfamiliarity about the income tax return, income tax notices, assessment hearings, creation of email-id as well as income login-id. Inspite of explaining the facts of my case on each appeal hearing, the CIT(A) has dismissed my appeal by not condoning the delay occurred while filing the appeal. As per CIT(A) there was a delay of 149 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the appellant did not file any sufficient reasons for condonation of filing the appeal.

8.

I hereby now submit that I am not an educated person and in view of ignorance about the income tax notices and assessment order, I could not attend any proceedings before the income tax officer. In view of the above reasons, there was a delay of 149 days occurred in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and this delay was unintentional.

9.

I request the hon'ble ITAT to kindly condone the delay occurred while filing the appeal before the CIT(A) against the assessment

Yashwant Haribabu Gaikar 5 ITA No. 168/MUM/2026

order passed under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 for the Assessment Year 2018-19 and decide the matter on merits.” 4. It is well settled that the expression "sufficient cause" employed in the law relating to limitation should ordinarily receive a liberal and pragmatic construction so as to advance substantial justice, provided the explanation furnished is bona fide and does not disclose deliberate negligence, want of due diligence or mala fide conduct. At the same time, the authority entrusted with the discretion to condone delay is required to objectively examine the explanation offered in the light of the material placed on record before recording its satisfaction one way or the other. In the present case, the explanation now furnished by way of a sworn affidavit was admittedly not before the Ld. CIT(A.) while passing the impugned order. Since the affidavit contains material facts which may have a bearing on the question whether sufficient cause existed for the delay, we are of the considered view that the interests of justice would be better served by restoring the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A.) for a fresh examination of the issue of limitation. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the adequacy or otherwise of the explanation furnished by the assessee. 5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A.) for adjudicating afresh the assessee's application for condonation of delay after considering the affidavit and such other material as may be placed on record. In the

Yashwant Haribabu Gaikar 6 ITA No. 168/MUM/2026

event the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(A.) shall proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law after affording the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard. The assessee shall extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings and shall avoid seeking unnecessary adjournments.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 13/07/2026 Dragon Legal /Z.U., P.S.

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

//True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →