LATE SURYAKANT SHANTARAM BANE (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR-SANDEEP SURYAKANT BANE),MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 42(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5376/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 August 2026AY 2016-174 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 608 days in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation plausible and bona fide. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits as the appeal was dismissed in limine on limitation.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a revision petition under Section 264 instead of an appeal before the CIT(A) due to an incorrect email address. The assessee was unaware of the disposal of the revision petition and filed the appeal with a significant delay of 608 days.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable, and if so, whether the case should be remanded for adjudication on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 250,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & HON’BLE PRABHASH SHANKAR

Pronounced: 21.08.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER: NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 20.02.2026, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, “Ld. Commissioner”) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), for the A.Y. 2016-17.

2.

Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal are that the assessment was completed vide order dated 07.03.2024, passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, whereby the Assessing Officer (in short, “AO”) made an addition of Rs.70,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The Assessee challenged the said addition by filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, with a delay of 608 days.

3.

In Column No.15 of Form No.35, the Assessee explained the delay as under:

“We request your Honor to consider our delay for filing the appeal with you for our client Suryakant Shantaram Bane for AY 2016-17, we have opted for Application for Revision u/s. 264 of the Income Tax Act 1961 as the same was not in their jurisdiction. Revision was set aside with suggestion to file an appeal with Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal. We shall greatly appreciate your co-operation to admit this appeal.” 4. It appears from the affidavit filed by the Assessee that, instead of filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner against the assessment order, the Assessee filed a revision petition u/s 264 of the Act on 29.08.2024. It was explained that the e-mail address recorded in the proceedings was “upsalkar@yahoo.co.in” instead of the Assessee’s e- mail address, i.e., “sandipbane2@gmail.com”, and, therefore, the Assessee remained unaware of the disposal of the revision petition.

5.

Subsequently, during a routine inspection of the income-tax portal, the consultant of the Assessee became aware that the revision petition had already been disposed of vide order dated 16.10.2025. Thereafter, upon obtaining advice from another counsel, the Assessee filed the first appeal, albeit with a delay of 608 days. In support of the application seeking condonation of delay, the Assessee also filed a duly sworn affidavit explaining the aforesaid circumstances.

6.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is evident that the Assessee had pursued the remedy of revision u/s 264 of the Act against the assessment order and, upon becoming aware of the disposal thereof, filed the statutory appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. The explanation furnished by the Assessee, duly supported by an affidavit, prima facie appears to be plausible, bona fide and sufficient to explain the delay. There is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate or occasioned by any mala fide intention.

7.

Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the first appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of 608 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner is condoned.

8.

Coming to the merits, since the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation without adjudicating the issues on merits, we deem it appropriate to remand the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for adjudication afresh on merits.

9.

Accordingly, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on merits, suffice to say, by affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and considering the material and submissions placed or to be placed on record. The Ld. Commissioner shall decide each ground raised by the Assessee in accordance with law and pass a speaking order. The Assessee is also directed to furnish the requisite documents and submissions in support of its claim without unnecessary delay or default. We clarify that, in case of any unjustified default, the Assessee shall not be entitled to any leniency.

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 21.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- PRABHASH SHANKAR NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (Tarun Kushwaha) Sr. Private Secretary

Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench

//True Copy// By Order

Dy/Asstt. 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 →