SMT. RUPA PRADIP SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-CC-8(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

At the very outset, we noticed that there is a delay of approximately 420 days in filing the appeal before us. In this regard assessee has filed application for seeking condonation of delay and the same is reproduced herein below:

Kindly refer to the appeal filed by the appellant before the Hon'ble Tribunal on 24.11.2025 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 against the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) dated 26.06.2024, arising from the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 20.12.2016.

The said order of the Ld. CIT(A) was uploaded on the Income Tax Portal on 26.06.2024, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant on the grounds of non- compliance with the hearing notices and confirming the additions made by the Ld. AO. The appellant only became aware of the passing of the said order on 15.11.2025. Considering the date of order of Ld. CIT(A) as the date of receipt of order i.e. 26.06.2024, the time limit to file the appeal expired on 31.08.2024. The present appeal was filed on 24.11.2025 resulting in delay of 450 days (1 year and 3 months approximately) in filing the appeal.

At the outset, it is submitted that the appellant had opted for physical service of notice in the Form 35 filed before the Ld. CIT(A). However, no physical notices were served upon the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings. In any case, it is submitted that the hearing notices were being sent on the email account of the appellant's son, Mr. Parth Shah having email address parth9977@gmail.com. Screenshot of the income tax portal showing hearing notices being issued on this email address is enclosed herewith. All these notices as well as the impugned appellate order dated 26.06.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), were received in the spam folder of the said email account. Screenshot of the spam folder of the said email account is enclosed herewith. Moreover, the initial notice dated 24.02.2021 was sent during Covid-19 period. Due to the aforesaid reasons, the appellant could not take cognizance of the notice of hearing as well as the appellate order passed u/s. 250 of the Act dated 26.06.2024.

It was only in November 2025, when the appellant appointed a new tax consultant viz, M/s Shaishav Shah & Co., Chartered Accountants who checked the income tax portal and it was then realized that the CIT(A) order has already been passed on 26.06.2024. Thereafter, the appellant's son, Mr. Parth Shah checked his email account and realized that various notices as well as the impugned order had been going to the spam folder in his email account. No sooner, with the help of the consultant, the appellant arranged to file appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal on 24.11.2025.

The appellant hereby respectfully submits that the non-compliance before Ld. CIT(A), as well as delay in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal is entirely unintentional and arose solely due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control. The appellant has not tried to take any undue benefit and that there was no malafide intention on her part from such non-compliance.

It is submitted that the appellant has a good case on merits and strong arguable grounds with all the evidence challenging the additions confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The delay in filing the appeal has occurred due to the aforesaid bona fide and genuine circumstances beyond the control of the appellant and not due to any wilful negligence or disregard of law. It is therefore prayed that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned in the interest of justice and one more opportunity be granted to explain the case on merits.

In view of the above, it is submitted that the delay of 450 days in filing the appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be condoned by Your Honours.

The aforesaid facts have been affirmed by the appellant vide a duly notarized affidavit. Copy of the affidavit is enclosed herewith.

In this connection, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Others [167 ITR 471]. In the said decision, Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following principles in respect of condonation of delay in filing an appeal.

The appellant also relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnan [(1998) 7 SCC 123] wherein it has been held that the sole criteria for condoning the delay is acceptability of explanation and the length of delay is irrelevant. It was further held that in the absence of anything showing malafide and deliberate delay indicating dilatory tactics, court should normally condone the delay.

On similar grounds, the following judicial authorities have also condoned the delay in filling the appeal:

In light of the above submissions and contentions, the appellant prays that the delay of 450 days in filing the appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be condoned and one more opportunity of hearing be granted to present the case.

Having considered the application for condonation of delay, the affidavits filed by the assessee as well as her former Chartered Accountant, Mr. Bharat Shah, and the material placed on record, we are satisfied that the assessee has demonstrated sufficient and bona fide cause for the delay of 420 days in filing the present appeal. The record reveals that the assessee had been diligently pursuing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) by filing various submissions and additional evidences over the years, pursuant to which even remand proceedings were conducted. The affidavit of the erstwhile tax consultant further corroborates that he had ceased to represent the assessee from the year 2020 on account of his advancing age and was thereafter neither monitoring nor aware of the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A). The subsequent non-compliance arose after the proceedings shifted to the electronic mode, as the notices as well as the appellate order uploaded on the Income-tax Portal were received in the spam folder of the email account registered on the portal, resulting in the assessee remaining unaware of the passing of the impugned order until November 2025, when a newly appointed tax consultant examined the portal. Immediately thereafter, the present appeal was filed without further delay. The explanation furnished by the assessee stands duly supported by the contemporaneous affidavits and there is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate, intentional or actuated by any mala fide motive. On the contrary, refusal to condone the delay would deprive the assessee of an opportunity to challenge the additions confirmed and the enhancement made by the learned CIT(A), thereby defeating the cause of substantial justice. Respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471), wherein a liberal approach has been advocated in matters of condonation of delay to advance substantial justice, we condone the delay of 420 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

Hence, considering the explanation put forth by the assessee, who has justifiably and properly explained the delay that occurred in filing the appeal, and construing the expression “sufficient cause” liberally, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before us. Consequently, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits.

Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the issues raised by the assessee and considering the fact that the assessee could not effectively represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A), and therefore, in the interest of justice, the Bench is of the view that one more opportunity be given to the assessee to represent his case before the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, considering the overall circumstances of the present case, we deem it proper to set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh after providing adequate and sufficient opportunity of hearing, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- imposed upon the assessee, which shall be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. A copy of the receipt shall be placed on record before the Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of the proceedings.

Before parting, we wish to make it clear that our decision to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as reflecting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated independently by the Ld. CIT(A) in accordance with law.

Needless to mention, the Ld. CIT(A) shall provide an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and shall remain cooperative during the course of the proceedings.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to ITA No 7705/Mum/2025 for the A.Y 2009-10 (except variance in days of delay), therefore, the decision rendered in above paragraphs would apply mutatis mutandis for these appeals also.