What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay were sufficient cause for condonation, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. MST Katiji. The Tribunal found that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations.

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 124 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of this delay without adjudicating the merits of the case. The assessee explained the delay was due to the consultant's oversight during busy period.

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 without adjudicating on merits.

Sudhakar Sharma vs Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax | ITAT Mumbai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAILSHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Sewlani

For Respondent: Shri Vikas Chandra, Sr. DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 528/Mum./2026 (Assessment Year : 2020-21) Sudhakar Sharma, 101 Shree Hari Enclave Nahur Village, Mulund (W), Mumbai - 400080 ……………. Appellant PAN : BGRPS1581A v/s

Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Kautilya Bhavan, Income Tax Office, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, ……………. Respondent Mumbai – 400051

Assessee by : Shri Rajesh Sewlani Revenue by : Shri Vikas Chandra, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing – 20/04/2026 Date of Order – 11/05/2026

O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 12.01.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2020-21.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “The Appellant respectfully submits the following grounds of appeal, which are without prejudice to one another:

2 ITA No. 528/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2020-21)

Ground No. 1 - Wrongful refusal to condone delay 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay of in filing the appeal, despite the Appellant having shown sufficient and reasonable cause supported by affidavits and documentary evidence. Ground No. 2 - Failure to appreciate bona fide conduct 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the delay occurred due to bona fide reliance on the Appellant's consultant, which has consistently been held by courts to constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Ground No. 3 - Mechanical and hyper-technical approach 3. The learned CIT(A) adopted a hyper-technical and mechanical approach, ignoring the principles of substantial justice and natural justice, and thereby defeated the Appellant's statutory right of first appeal. Ground No. 4 - Non-consideration of evidences 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding the affidavits of the Appellant and the consultant and the contemporaneous email correspondence, which clearly established that the delay was not intentional or deliberate. Ground No. 5 - Denial of justice without adjudication on merits 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without adjudicating the substantial additions made by the Assessing Officer, thereby causing serious prejudice to the Appellant. Ground No. 6 - Incorrect reliance on judicial precedents 6. The learned CIT(A) wrongly relied upon judicial precedents relating to cases of gross and unexplained delay, whereas the delay in the present case was modest and properly explained, making such reliance misplaced. Ground No. 7 - Violation of principles of natural justice 7. The order passed by the learned CIT(A) is violative of principles of natural justice as the Appellant has been denied effective opportunity of being heard on merits. Ground No. 8 - Prayer for restoration 8. The Appellant prays that the delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) be condoned and the matter be restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) with direction to adjudicate the appeal on merits in accordance with law.”

We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident

3 ITA No. 528/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2020-21)

that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of delay of 124 days in filing the appeal by the assessee without adjudicating the grounds raised by the assesses on additions made by the AO vide assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Act.

During the hearing, the learned Authorized Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that in its appeal before the learned CIT(A), the assessee explained the reasons leading to delay of 124 days in filing the appeal and in this regard apart from stating the reasons for delay in column 15 of Form 35, the assessee also filed the affidavit of his consultant along with his own affidavit. The learned AR submitted that immediately upon receipt of the assessment order, the assessee forwarded a copy of the same to his consultant, Mr. Mahipal Daulatraj Jain, for taking necessary action against the addition made by the AO. However, despite receipt of the assessment order, the consultant failed to take necessary steps and did not file the appeal before the learned CIT(A) within the prescribed limitation period. During the hearing, by referring to the affidavit of the consultant which forms part of the paper book from pages 22-24, the learned AR submitted that the consultant due to March ending work, could not filed the appeal against the assessment order and the same remain pending in his office and only after receipt of recovery notice from the Income Tax Department steps were taken for filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A). Therefore, it was submitted that due to the aforesaid circumstances, the appeal was filed before the learned CIT(A) after a delay of 124 days.

4 ITA No. 528/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2020-21)

As is evident from the impugned order, the learned CIT(A) did not agree with the submissions of the assessee and dismissed the appeal on the basis of the delay without adjudicating the grounds of appeal on merits.

We find that the reasons stated by the assessee for seeking condonation of delay fall within the parameters for grant of condonation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. MST Katiji and Ors., reported in 1987 (2) SCR 387. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. It is evident from the record that, in the present case, the assessee did not stand to benefit from the late filing of the appeal. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case as noted above, we are of the considered view that the assessee has proved sufficient cause for not filing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) within the prescribed limitation period. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the said delay should be condoned. Hence, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) for consideration on merits, as per law, after condoning the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. We order accordingly. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. The assessee is directed to appear before the learned CIT(A) on all dates of hearing as may be fixed without any default. As the matter is being restored to the file of the learned CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, the other grievances raised by the assessee in the present appeal do not call for adjudication at this stage, and therefore, the

5 ITA No. 528/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2020-21)

same are kept open. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/05/2026

Sd/- Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 11/05/2026 Prabhat

Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai

SUDHAKAR SHARMA,MUMBAI vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 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