PRIYANKA SANDEEPKUMAR JAISWAL,MUMBAI,MAHARASHTRA vs. ITO WARD 42(3)(1), MUMBAI, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, BANDRA EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA, INDIA - 400051, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

ITA No. 3114, 3115 & 3116/Mum/2026; Priyanka Sandeepkumar Jaiswal Per Bench: The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee, against the separate

orders of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre

(NFAC), Delhi [“the Ld. CIT(A)], all dated 28.01.2026 for the assessment year

2022-23, arises against the assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(3) and penalty

orders u/s. 270A, 271AAC (1) of the Act.

against the ex-parte orders by the Ld. CIT(A), who had dismissed the appeal of

assessee on account of delay in filing of appeal before him. It is noticed that the

appeals before the first appellate authority were filed with delay of 509 days

(against 144 order), 327 days (against 270A order and (271AAC(1) order). The

findings of Ld. CIT(A) are identical in all the aforesaid three cases. Therefore, for

the sake of interpretation the findings against assessment u/s. 144 by the first

appellate authority are extracted as under:

“6. Thus, it is trite in law that the appellant must show that he was diligent in taking proper steps and the delay was caused notwithstanding his due diligence. It is for the appellant to explain the reason for the delay and it is not the function of authorities to find the cause for delay. The Appellate authority has to examine whether the sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for condoning the delay and whether such cause is acceptable or not. Even though substantial justice should not be defeated by technicalities but that does not mean that any plea without any possible or acceptable basis and even without bearing, semblance or rationality has to be accepted and delay has to be accepted and condoned which shall be 2

ITA No. 3114, 3115 & 3116/Mum/2026; Priyanka Sandeepkumar Jaiswal against the very spirit of law. The time prescribed for filing the appeal will become meaningless in such an event. Merely because substantial justice is to be done law of limitation cannot be ignored and that also when there is no sufficient and reasonable cause for such inordinate delay.

6.1 The appellant, in the present situation, appears to be guilty of negligence and does not take appropriate steps to peruse the remedy till about 509 days and thus does not take appropriate action in filing the appeal within the prescribed time. In the light of the above discussion and considering the facts and position of the law on this issue, I find that there is no sufficient cause for condoning the delay in the institution of appeal by the appellant and thus condonation of delay is hereby rejected.

6.2 Since the appeal is being dismissed on account of being filed beyond the period prescribed under the Act, therefore, I am not expressing any opinion on merit of the case.

6.3 The appeal of the appellant is dismissed for statistical purpose.”

appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) are furnished with a delay, to substantiate the

reasons for such delay, an affidavit dated 26th August, 2025 has been furnished

stating therein the reasons on account of which the delay was occurred. From

the contents of affidavit, it is appearing that the assessee had entrusted the

matters to her Counsel but the said counsel, who was handling the entire income

tax matters and compliances on behalf of the assessee, did not took necessary

actions and had not complied with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. The

assessee, thereafter, had taken time to identify and appoint a new counsel who

ITA No. 3114, 3115 & 3116/Mum/2026; Priyanka Sandeepkumar Jaiswal had reviewed the matter afresh, understand the appropriate remedy available

under the Act and then had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). He further

submitted that the delay in filing of appeal was neither deliberate nor due to

negligence of the assessee but solely due to circumstances beyond the control

of the assessee. It was the prayer, therefore, that the delay before the Ld. CIT(A)

may please be condoned and the matter may be restored back to the file of Ld.

CIT(A) for de novo adjudication of the merits of the case.

of revenue authorities and submitted that the negligence on the part of assessee

cannot be attributed to the revenue and the assessee should not be permitted

with a second inning to represent her case, while the assessee remained

negligent during the first round of proceedings.

available on record. Admittedly, in present cases all the aforesaid three appeals

of assessee are dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of delay in filing of appeal,

in limine without any adjudication of merits of the case. We note that as per

settled principles of law, the matter pertaining to delay needs to be looked into

with justice oriented and liberal approach. Further, in the interest of justice, we

find that the assessee can be provided with one more but final opportunity, so

that the appeals of assessee can be decided on merits, to arrive at a logical

ITA No. 3114, 3115 & 3116/Mum/2026; Priyanka Sandeepkumar Jaiswal conclusion. The matter, therefore, requires re-adjudication by the Ld. CIT(A). We,

therefore, restore these matters back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh

adjudication subject to payment of cost of Rs. 11,000/- per appeal with the

revenue department under the ‘other head’ within fifteen days from today.

opportunity of being heard in the set aside proceedings. The assessee is directed

to remain compliant and properly assist the Ld. Appellate Authority in the set

aside appellate proceedings failing which, the Ld. CIT(A) would be at liberty to

decide the appeals in accordance with the mandate of law.

forstatistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30-06-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) (ARUN KHODPIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated : 30-06-2026. Soumili Das, PS

ITA No. 3114, 3115 & 3116/Mum/2026; Priyanka Sandeepkumar Jaiswal Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai