What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had established a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing a liberal and justice-oriented interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A)'s technical approach in declining to condone the delay was deemed unsustainable.

The assessee, an octogenarian senior citizen, failed to file an appeal within the prescribed time due to non-service of notices at a vacated address, age-related ailments, and unfamiliarity with electronic systems. The delay was further compounded by the Covid-19 pandemic and health issues.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was caused by a sufficient cause, and if so, whether the appeal should be admitted for adjudication on merits.

Girjashanker Shi vs Hanker Punjani, Mumbaivs.Income… | ITAT Mumbai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI PAWAN SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Girjashanker Punjani

For Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath- CIR DR a/w Shri Rajgopal Parthasarathi, Sr

Hearing: 10/07/2026

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 23/01/2026 passed by the Ld. Additional Commissioner of Income-

Girjashanker Shivshanker Punjani 2 ITA No. 2237/MUM/2026

tax (appeals), Prayagraj [in short the Ld. CIT(A)] under faceless procedure for Assessment Year 2012-13, raising following grounds:

“1. The appeal filed by the appellant before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) came to be dismissed on the ground that the delay in filing the appeal was not condoned, and consequently, the appeal was not adjudicated on merits. 2. The appellant submits that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to bona fide and unavoidable circumstances and was neither intentional nor deliberate. 3. The appellant is a senior citizen of advanced age and is not conversant with electronic systems, and therefore depends on family members for assistance in income tax compliance. 4. The appellant first became aware of the assessment proceedings and related orders only on 28.02.2021, as notices and communications were sent to an address which had been vacated long earlier. 5. The period of delay coincided with the Covid-19 pandemic and was further impacted by serious health issues and hospitalisation of the appellant and his wife, as well as the time required to collect old financial records from multiple institutions. 6. The appellant respectfully submits that the delay was caused by reasonable and sufficient cause and that the interests of justice would be served by condoning the delay and restoring the appeal for adjudication on merits. 7. Without prejudice to the above, the appellant respectfully submits that, in the interest of justice, the matter may kindly be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction at Mumbai, with a direction to afford the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, or modify the above grounds at the time of hearing.”

Girjashanker Shivshanker Punjani 3 ITA No. 2237/MUM/2026

The principal grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in declining to condone the delay of 136 days in filing the appeal and, consequently, dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) came to be dismissed solely on the ground that the delay of 136 days in its presentation was not condoned. Consequently, the issues raised in the appeal were never examined on merits. 4. Before us, the assessee was represented by his son, who submitted that during the relevant assessment year the assessee, being a senior citizen aged over 80 years, had income below the taxable threshold and, therefore, had not filed a return of income in the normal course. It was further submitted that the assessee had been suffering from age-related ailments and was entirely dependent upon his family members for attending to his financial and tax matters. It was explained that the statutory notices issued during the assessment proceedings were dispatched to an address which had already been vacated by the assessee. As a result, the notices remained unserved upon him and no compliance could be made, leading to the completion of the assessment ex parte under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). It was further submitted that the assessment order was also not received

Girjashanker Shivshanker Punjani 4 ITA No. 2237/MUM/2026

physically and the assessee became aware of the assessment only upon receipt of penalty notices issued subsequently. 4.1 Learned Authorised Representative further submitted that immediately upon acquiring knowledge of the assessment proceedings, the assessee took corrective steps, discharged the penalty levied for non-compliance and thereafter preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) along with an application seeking condonation of delay supported by reasons explaining the circumstances under which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period. According to the assessee, the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to any negligence but arose on account of advanced age, non-service of notices at the correct address, lack of familiarity with electronic communication and the exceptional circumstances prevailing during the relevant period. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. It is well settled that the expression "sufficient cause" occurring in the provisions governing condonation of delay is required to receive a liberal and justice-oriented interpretation. Procedural provisions regulating limitation are intended to ensure orderly conduct of litigation and are not designed to defeat substantial justice where the explanation offered is bona fide and does not disclose any deliberate inaction or want of due diligence.

Girjashanker Shivshanker Punjani 5 ITA No. 2237/MUM/2026

5.1 In the present case, the explanation furnished by the assessee cannot be said to be either implausible or lacking in bona fides. The assessee is an octogenarian who has consistently maintained that he was unaware of the assessment proceedings as the statutory communications had been issued to an address no longer occupied by him. The circumstances explained by the assessee regarding his advanced age, dependence upon family members for tax compliance, lack of familiarity with electronic modes of communication and the subsequent discovery of the assessment proceedings upon receipt of penalty notices constitute a coherent and credible explanation for the delay. 5.2 We also find it significant that the assessee, upon becoming aware of the proceedings, did not remain indifferent. On the contrary, he complied with the consequential penalty proceedings by paying the penalty levied for non-compliance and thereafter promptly pursued the statutory appellate remedy. Such conduct is inconsistent with any intention to disregard the statutory process and, on the contrary, demonstrates a bona fide desire to regularise the matter in accordance with law. 5.3 The ld. CIT(A), in our considered opinion, adopted an unduly technical approach in declining to condone the delay. The explanation furnished by the assessee deserved to be examined in the backdrop of the surrounding circumstances and not in isolation. When the explanation appears reasonable and no mala

Girjashanker Shivshanker Punjani 6 ITA No. 2237/MUM/2026

fides or deliberate negligence are attributable to the litigant, the cause of substantial justice must prevail over technical considerations relating to limitation. 5.4 We are, therefore, satisfied that the assessee has established sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The delay of 136 days deserves to be condoned. Consequently, the order of the ld. CIT(A) declining to admit the appeal cannot be sustained. Ordinarily, upon condonation of delay, the matter would be restored to the file of the first appellate authority for adjudication on merits. However, considering the peculiar facts of the present case, particularly, the assessment order also being ex-parte, the advanced age of the assessee, his residence within the jurisdiction of Mumbai and the inconvenience that may be caused by continuation of proceedings before authorities situated elsewhere in faceless manner , we consider it appropriate to observe that the competent authorities may, in accordance with law and the applicable administrative instructions, examine the feasibility of restoring or transferring the proceedings to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, if otherwise permissible. We clarify that this observation is only recommendatory in nature and shall not be construed as a binding direction. Accordingly, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for

Girjashanker Shivshanker Punjani 7 ITA No. 2237/MUM/2026

adjudication of the appeal afresh on merits after affording the assessee a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard. The assessee is also directed to extend full cooperation and furnish all necessary material as may be required during the appellate proceedings.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 10/07/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 10/07/2026 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,

Girjashanker Shivshanker Punjani 8 ITA No. 2237/MUM/2026

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

GIRJASHANKER SHI vs. HANKER PUNJANI,MUMBAIVS.INCOME TAX OFFICER, 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