What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the delay was not inordinate and that justice would be better served by deciding the appeal on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the First Appellate Authority's order.

The assessee's appeal before the First Appellate Authority was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 26 days. The assessee cited the hospitalization of his mother as the reason for the delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority should be condoned on the grounds provided by the assessee.

Niraj Dilip Shah vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’ble Vice- & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Hon’ble

For Appellant: Shri Subramaniyam

For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari ( Sr. AR)

Hearing: 28.04.2026Pronounced: 30.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI Before Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’ble Vice-President & Shri Prabhash Shankar, Hon’ble Accountant Member ITA No.1470/Mum/2026 Assessment Year : 2023-24 Niraj Dilip Shah Income tax officer 8B Lokhandwala Building, Mumbai-400020 Vs. 1st Floor 130 Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 PAN AANPS0813Q (Appellant) Respondent)

Appellant By : Shri Subramaniyam Respondent By : Shri Swapnil Choudhari ( Sr. AR) Date of Hearing :28.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, Vice-President This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 31.12.2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for the A.Y 2023-24. The limited grievance of the assessee in the present appeal is with regard to the dismissal of his appeal in limine on the ground of delay.

We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We find that there was a delay of 26 days in filing the appeal. While seeking condonation of delay, the assessee had submitted that the appeal could not be filed in time due to hospitalization of his mother. Apparently, finding lack of sufficient cause in the explanation of the assessee, the First Appellate Authority has declined to condone the delay and accordingly, dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. On overall consideration of facts and material on

2 ITA 1470/Mum/2026 Niraj Dilip Shah record, we are of the view that interest of justice would be better served in case the appeal filed by the assessee is decided on merits considering the fact that the delay is of merely 26 days and not inordinate. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the First Appellate Authority with a direction to condone the delay and decide the appeal de novo on merits after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to promptly respond to the notice of hearing to be issued by the First Appellate Authority and effectively participate in the appellate proceedings.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30th April, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (Prabhash Shankar) (Saktijit Dey) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Mumbai, Dated : 30th April, 2026 SA Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. The PCIT , Mumbai. 5. The DR, ‘B’ Bench, ITAT, Mumbai BY ORDER

//True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai

NIRAJ DILIP SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments