What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issue denovo on merits after considering the delay.

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 733 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. The assessee contended that the delay was due to the bonafide mistake of the tax consultant.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was sufficiently explained and whether the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case on merits.

Viraj Vinod Lad vs ITO | s.250 | ITAT Mumbai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “K(SMC

Before: AND SHRI JAGADISH, AM

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Sarda, AR

For Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Hearing: 21.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI JAGADISH, AM ITA No.8545/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21)

Mr. Viraj Vinod Lad, ITO WD 34(3)(5) 1, Bhagat Chawl, Shahji Raje Marg, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Vile Parle East, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400057 PAN: ADHPL3174E (Appellant) : (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Gaurav Sarda, AR Respondent by : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 21.04.2026 : 30.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], National Faceless

Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”

for short) relevant to assessment year (“AY” for short) 2020-21.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal filled against the order passed u/s 143(3) on ground of non condonation of delay of 733 days in filling appeal before CIT (A) NFAC on 14.09.2024.

CIT (A) erred in not considering properly reason / sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal in time, when as delay was properly, satisfactorily explained in delay petition.

CIT (A) erred in not deciding the appeal on merit of case, simply dismissed the appeal, hence order of CIT(A) may please be set aside.

On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law AO erred in making / CIT(A) NFAC confirming the addition -

a) Addition of Rs.11,87,478/- on account of claim of deduction under head other allowances (830056), HRA (Rs.2,77,422/-), 80DDB (Rs.80,000/-)

b) Addition of Rs.57,762/- house property interest paid difference u/s. 24(b) c) Addition of Rs.73,184/- short term capital gain not shown in revised return, whereas in original return short term capital gain was shown at Rs.42,170/-

d) Addition of Rs.1,289/- interest income received not shown in the return.

On facts and in circumstances of the case and in law on receipt of order assessee could not file appeal in time due to wrong advice of tax consultant, thus appellant should not suffer on account of in advertence on the part of tax consultant.”

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and was an employee in

Avenue Supermart Ltd. The assessee filed his return of income for the year under

consideration dated 11.12.2020 declaring total income at Rs.25,01,570/- and had claimed

a refund of Rs.49,580/-. The assessee then revised his return of income dated 19.03.2021

declaring total income at Rs.14,51,930/- and had claimed a refund of Rs.3,70,490/-. The

assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the following reason:

“Taxable income shown in revised return is less than the taxable income shown in the original return of income and large refund has been claimed (non business ITR).”

The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO” for short) then passed the assessment order

dated 12.09.2022 determining the total income at Rs.27,71,843/- after making various

additions/disallowances.

Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority who vide

order dated 27.10.2025 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine without

condoning the delay of 733 days in filing the first appeal. 2

Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us challenging the order of the Ld.

CIT(A) on the aforementioned grounds.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.

It is observed that the Ld. AO during the assessment proceeding made various additions

towards HRA, other allowances u/s 80DDB and assessed the total income at

Rs.27,71,843/-.

The Ld. Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR” for short) for the assessee contended

that the assessee was unable to furnish all relevant documentary evidences before the Ld.

AO due to lack of proper guidance from the tax consultant. Further, he also contended that

the delay caused in filing the first appeal was also not deliberate or intentional and was due

to the bonafide mistake of the tax consultant. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee has got

a good case on merits being a salaried employee and prayed that one more opportunity be

granted to the assessee to present his case before the first appellate authority. The Ld. AR

relied on a catena of decisions in support of his contention.

The Ld. Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR” for short) for the Revenue, on the

other hand, vehemently opposed to setting aside this issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for

the reason that the assessee had not explained that there was “sufficient cause” for the delay

in filing the first appeal. The Ld. DR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

the case of Union of India vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy in SLP (Civil) No.21096 of

2019 dated April 03, 2024 where it was held that the delay ought not to be condoned as a

matter of generosity as it would result in prejudice being caused to the other party.

On perusal of the rival contentions, we deem it fit to extend the assessee with one

more opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A) after duly considering the delay

in filing the first appeal by adhering to the principles of natural justice and in the interest

of justice dispensation. We place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

the case of Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi & ors. (1979) 118

ITR 507 (SC) relied by the Ld. AR where the delay caused due to the mistake of the counsel

could be condoned under certain circumstances, though not a general proposition, as there

being a “sufficient cause” for the delay. We have also perused various other decisions

relied upon by both sides and have arrived at a conclusion that the assessee be given another

opportunity to present his case before the first appellate authority with the direction that

there should not be any further delay on the part of the assessee in complying with the

proceeding before the first appellate authority. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the

issue denovo on the basis of the merits of the case and in accordance with law.

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical

purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.04.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30.04.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forwarded to:

The Appellant 4

2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

VIRAJ VINOD LAD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 34 (3)(5), BANDRA EAST

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