VISHAL RAMKRISHNA DUTT,VASHI NEW MUMBAI vs. ITO, CGO COMPLEX

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3796/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 June 2026AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the expression 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice, especially in the context of a new faceless regime. The delay was condoned, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal with the CIT(A) with a delay of 517 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay, citing lack of sufficient cause. The assessee, a senior citizen with health issues and unfamiliarity with technology, sought condonation.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned, considering the assessee's circumstances and the transition to a faceless regime. The interpretation of 'sufficient cause' for condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 201,Section 201(1),Section 201(1A),Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & HON’BLE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: E

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 3796/MUM/2026 िनधा�रणवष�/Assmt. Year: 2019-20) Permanent Account Number: AAGPO1553M Vishal Ramakrishna Dutt ITO 205-B Bigsplash, Sector 17 CGO Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Thane Vs. Mumbai. Maharashtra-400 705. (अपीलाथ� Appellant) (��थ� Respondent)

िनधा�रती�ारा/Assessee represented by: None राज� व�ारा/Revenue represented Smt. Sujatha Iyyanger, Sr. by: DR

सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of conclusion of hearing: 18-June-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of pronouncement: 23-June-2026 आदेश/ ORDER PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Add./JCIT(A) vide DIN & & Order No. : ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1085189057(1) dated 27.01.2026 passed against the order by ITO, TDS Ward 2(3)(3), Mumbai u/s 201(1)/201(1A) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 21.09.2023 for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

2.

Through ground no. 9, assessee is contesting on the denial of condonation of delay of 517 days by CIT(A) in filing the first appeal. According to the assessee, first appeal has been dismissed without granting proper opportunity of being heard. Contention of the assessee is that he is a senior citizen aged about 70 years, suffers from certain health issues and not familiar with the technology because of which there were delays in responding to the notices issued.

3.

From the perusal of the first appellate order, we note that the appeal has been dismissed in limine holding that assessee could not furnish “sufficient cause” for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. In the said order, ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the reasons given by the assessee as furnished in Form 35, seeking condonation of delay.

4.

Facts of the matter are that assessee is engaged in the business of building construction activities. Ld. AO observed that assessee did not comply with the provisions of TDS while making payment for certain expenses which were identified in the tax audit report filed in Form 3CD, based on which proceedings under section 201 were initiated holding assessee as an “assessee in default”, under section 201(1) and 201(1A).

5.

To address the issue in hand before us, we need to delve into the understanding of the expression "sufficient cause". Sub-section 3 of Section 249 contemplates that the CIT(A) may admit an appeal after expiry of relevant period, if he is satisfied that there was a "sufficient cause" for not presenting it within that period. Similarly, it has been used in section 5 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Whenever interpretation and construction of this expression has fallen for consideration before Hon'ble High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then, Hon'ble Court were unanimous in their conclusion that this expression is to be used liberally.

5.1. We may make reference to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court from the decision in the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, 1987 AIR 1353: "1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour's delay, every second's delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non- deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 5.2. Similarly, we would like to make reference to authoritative pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy (supra). It reads as under:

"Rule of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life- span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. Law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim Interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be putt to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the right of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. A court knows that refusal to condone delay would result foreclosing a suitor from putting forth his cause. There is no presumption that delay in approaching the court is always deliberate. This Court has held that the words "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice vide Shakuntala Devi lain Vs. Kuntal Kumari [AIR 1969 SC 575] and State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality [AIR 1972 SC 749]. It must be remembered that in every case of delay there can be some lapse on the part of the litigant concerned. That alone is not enough to turn down his plea and to shut the door against him. If the explanation does not smack of mala fides or it is not put forth as part of a dilatory strategy the court must show utmost consideration to the suitor. But when there is reasonable ground to think that the delay was occasioned by the party deliberately to gain time then the court should lean against acceptance of the explanation. While condoning delay the Could should not forget the opposite party altogether. It must be borne in mind that he is a looser and he too would have incurred quiet a large litigation expenses. It would be a salutary guideline that when courts condone the delay due to laches on the part of the applicant the court shall compensate the opposite party for his loss." 6. We do not deem it necessary to re-cite or recapitulate the proposition laid down in other decisions. It is sufficed to say that the Hon'ble Courts are unanimous in their approach to propound that whenever the reasons assigned by an applicant for explaining the delay, then such reasons are to be construed with a justice-oriented approach.

6.1. We have considered the submissions made before us. Ld. Sr. DR objected on the submissions made by the assessee by contending that the assessee has defaulted before the authorities below in complying with the requirements. We have perused the material placed on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The facts of the case have already been narrated in the above paragraph.

7.

Considering the submissions made by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) as well as contentions raised through ground no. 9 in the present appeal, we do take note of the fact that faceless regime is a new technological phenomenon going through teething phase. Hence, it requires lenient and pragmatic approach to handle certain lapses which are unintended. Transition to a faceless and digital appellate regime is intended to enhance efficiency, but it must not become a barrier to justice for those who lack the technical proficiency to navigate such systems. Reiterating Hon'ble Supreme Court's repeated emphasis on the view that "substantial justice" must prevail over technical lapses, we emphasize that the merits should not be stifled due to a failure to respond to electronic notices, provided such failure is not mala fide.

8.

In the light of the above, if we examine the facts, then it would reveal that there is delay of 517 days in filing of first appeal. For the just decision of the controversy, considering the explanation furnished by the assessee, we find it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the appeal before ld. CIT(A).

9.

Having condoned the delay, in the given set of facts and circumstances, we find it appropriate to remit the matter back to the file of ld. AO for de novo meritorious adjudication on the issue for which the case of the assessee was taken up. Needless to say, assessee be given reasonable opportunity of being heard and to make all the relevant submissions as required to substantiate the claim made by him. We also direct the assessee to be diligent in making all its submissions so as to comply with the notices issued for fixing the date of hearing for effective and expeditious disposal of the proceedings. Accordingly, ground no. 9 raised by the assessee in this regard is allowed for statistical purposes.

10.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 23 June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (Amit Shukla) (Girish Agrawal) Judicial Member Accountant Member Mumbai : Dated: 23.06.2026 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. CIT-concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file

More judgments on Section 201

All 1,566 judgments and leading authorities on Section 201 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →