BRINEL VALERIAN PAIS,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-42(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2678/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 June 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it to be unintentional and due to sufficient cause, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed due to a delay of 295 days. The assessee claimed the delay was due to being an NRE, unfamiliar with tax proceedings, and issues with their tax consultant. The CIT(A) rejected this plea citing lack of evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was justifiable and whether the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the appeal on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69,Section 148,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri V.Narendra Sharma (Virtually Appeared)
For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 21.05.2026Pronounced: 08.06.2026

आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal emanating from the appellate order dated 12.09.2025 is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 16.12.2019 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18.

ITA No. 2678/Mum/2026; Brinel Valerian Pais 2. The assessee has filed various grounds of appeal inter alia contesting dismissal of its appeal by the ld.CIT(A) on account of delayed filing of appeal by 295 days before him which is stated to be beyond the control of the assessee.The assessee has also agitated the addition of Rs 83 lakh as Unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. It has also filed certain Additional ground of appeal agitating the reopening u/s 148 of the Act on various counts.

5.

The ld.CIT(A),however,rejected the plea of the legal heir claiming that there was no sufficient reason for condonation of the delay.The assessee had stated the facts of case as well as the reason for such delay in Form No. 35. It was observed by him that the assertions such as having no knowledge of property purchase, unaware of on-going Income Tax proceedings, are, only bald assertions with no evidentiary material. Nothing credible had been referred to in the affidavit which could corroborate the contents of the affidavit. It was found to be a case of laxity. Where law demands agility and sincerity, neglect and laxity are not to be rewarded. The reasons attributed were entirely vague, general, and wholly unrelated to the period of delay.

6.

The assessee before the ldCIT(A) had submitted that he was NRE living out of India and not conversant with income tax proceedings and could not understand the multiples proceedings including assessment and penalty proceedings as also 148 proceedings going on.He could take the assistance of his mother stating in India.Moreover,the tax consultant also due to his preoccupations did not take timely action.All such factors delayed the appeal filing which was on account of bonafide reasons and was not intentional.

ITA No. 2678/Mum/2026; Brinel Valerian Pais 7. On careful consideration of the submissions of the assessee,we are of the view that the delay was not intentional but due to unavoidable and sufficient cause. In this connection, reliance could be placed on the landmark decision of hon’ble Supreme Court which inter alia held in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others- 167 ITR 471 (SC) that “ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late……..Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated….Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period…. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs serious risk.” We therefore, condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the appellate authority.

8.

Before us,the ld.AR contended that as the assessment order was also passed ex parte u/s 144 of the Act,it was requested to send back the entire matter to the AO for framing assessment order de novo.It is assured that necessary compliance will be made before him.The ld.DR did not oppose the request.

9.

We have heard the rival parties and perused the material available on records. It is observed that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delayed filing of the appeal before him. He failed to adjudicate the

ITA No. 2678/Mum/2026; Brinel Valerian Pais issues raised in the grounds of appeal and did not examine the materials available on record. Such dismissal without deciding the appeal on merits is contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is settled law that it is the duty of the appellate authority to dispose of an appeal on merits after considering the material on record, even if the appellant fails to appear. However, it is equally true that it is the fundamental duty of the assessee to diligently pursue the appeal and comply with the notices and proceedings initiated by the Revenue authorities although in the instant case,there appears to be justifiable reasons for the delay.As the ld. AR has requested before us that the assessee may be accorded one more opportunity and this request which was not objected by the ld.DR, in such a scenario, we are of the opinion that the scales of justice demand that the matter should be verified and revisited at the level of ld.CIT(A) and accordingly, we are of the considered view that the matter should be remanded back to him for de novo adjudication by him while applying the principles of natural justice after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.He would be at liberty to file additional evidence /grounds as deemed fit in support of the appeal.The grounds of appeal are, therefore, allowed for statistical purposes.

10.

In the result, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No. 2678/Mum/2026; Brinel Valerian Pais Order pronounced in the open court on 08/06/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- AMIT SHUKLA PRABHASH SHANKAR (न्याययक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकारसदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai ददनाुंक /Date 08.06.2026 Soumili Das / PS

आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →