HARESH NANWANI,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, MUMBAI

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income for the impugned assessment year. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 22.04.2018, wherein the claim of set-off of brought-forward unabsorbed depreciation amounting to Rs.2,23,072/- was disallowed, resulting in consequential demand. Aggrieved by the said intimation, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 12.12.2025. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the appeal was delayed by 2762 days. The assessee explained the delay before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) was not satisfied with the explanation and observed that the reasons furnished were general and vague and were not adequately supported by documentary evidence. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A), by invoking Section 249(3) of the Act, declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the grounds on merits. Aggrieved by the impugned appellate order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Before us, the assessee has furnished a detailed condonation petition explaining, inter alia, non-availability of the intimation on the Income-tax Portal, subsequent receipt thereof through e-mail, medical difficulties and other circumstances stated to have prevented timely pursuit of the appellate remedy. The assessee has also referred to supporting medical records and other documentary evidence in support of the explanation for the delay.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed with substantial delay and the Ld. CIT(A), being dissatisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee, declined to condone the delay and consequently dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating the issues on merits.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of substantial justice, we deem it appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, without expressing any view either on the sufficiency of cause for the delay or on the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee, we set aside the impugned appellate order and restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The assessee is directed to file a proper condonation petition supported by a duly sworn/notarized affidavit, together with all supporting documentary evidence, before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the explanation and evidence furnished by the assessee and adjudicate the issue of condonation of delay with a liberal and justice-oriented approach, in accordance with law. In case the delay is condoned, the Ld. CIT(A) shall thereafter adjudicate the appeal on merits after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

However, considering the substantial delay and the necessity of restoring the matter for fresh consideration, the above relief is subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- [Rupees One thousand only] by the assessee under the “Other Head” of the Income-tax Department within two months from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall furnish proof of such payment before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee is further directed to remain diligent and cooperate in the set-aside proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the appeal and the Ld. CIT(A) shall consider the same independently in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 6643/Mum/2026 is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st day of August 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक �Dated: 21/08/2026 SAUMYA Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ� �The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी � The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध ,आय .अपी .अिध ., मुंबई �DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाइल �Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI