KISHOR HIMATLAL MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON’BLE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 557/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

Kishor Himatlal Mehta Vs. ITO, Deputy Kishor Himatlal Mehta Commissioner of 540, Loha Bhavan, P.D. Income Tax, Circle 6 (1) Mello Road, Masjid Bunder (1) (East), Room No. 563B, 5th Mumbai - 400009 Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 PAN/GIR No. AADPM3159K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR Date of Hearing 09.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.06.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 01.12.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/JCIT (A)-1, Ahmedabad, [‘CIT (A)’]for the assessment year 2019-20. The following grounds are reproduced below:

2 ITA No. 557/Mum/2026

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) misdirected himself in declining to condone the delay in filing the appeal, despite of observing that the reasons for the delay were 'honest & humane'.

2.The Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in not appreciating the reasons stated by the Appellant/assessee. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in ignoring the fact that addition u/s. 50C has been made in an u/s. 143(1) which is intimation impermissible. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in ignoring that the impugned initimation u/s. 143(1) was issued during covid period which made it difficult for the nonagenarian-assessee could not take cognisance of the same. 5.The CIT(A) failed to note that he has power to make reference to the DVO for valuation, u/s. 250 of the Act.

6.The Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in not considering the submissions filed/uploaded by the Appellant. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify any grounds of appeal.”

2.1 On the other hand, the Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments; therefore, we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the appeal ex parte.

3 ITA No. 557/Mum/2026

4.1. Condonation of delay:

4.1.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, wherein certain adjustments were made, resulting in an enhancement of total income. Along with the appeal, the appellant has also filed an application for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit dated 14.03.2023. The primary Issue for adjudication is whether the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned. The merits of the additions can be examined only if the appeal is admitted as validly filed.

4.1.2. The case records clearly reflect the following chronology:

A notice proposing adjustments u/s 143(1)(a) was issued on 23.02.2021.As per the system records and available screenshots, this notice was duly served electronically on the registered e-mail ID on 24.02.2021.No response to the above notice was filed within the statutory time limit.

4 ITA No. 557/Mum/2026

 He is 92 years old, suffering from age-related ailments and was bedridden.  He underwent spine surgery and was dependent on an escort for daily activities. He was not familiar with e-mail. and family members noticed the communication only much later.  COVID-19 restrictions during 2021-22 caused further hardship.  He relied on Supreme Court suo motu extension orders in SMW(C) No. 306/2020

The submissions have been carefully considered with due regard to the age, medical condition, and genuine hardship faced by the appellant.

4.1.5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant, the contents of the affidavit dated 14.03.2023, the medical difficulties explained therein, and the case law relied service history of notices and intimations. At the outset, while the circumstances narrated by upon by the appellant, together with the complete assessment records including the statutory the appellant, particularly his advanced age, restricted mobility due to spine surgery, and dependence on an

5 ITA No. 557/Mum/2026

escort for day-to-day movement, do evoke genuine sympathy, the issue before me is a legal question of whether the delay, extending to nearly two years, can be condoned under section 249(3) of the Income-tax Act

4.1.6. The electronic service records clearly show that the proposal for adjustment under section 143(1) was initiated on 23.02.2021 and duly served on the registered e-mail ID on 24.02.2021. The appellant has not disputed the correctness of this email address, which continues to be the registered communication address throughout. Similarly, the final intimation under section 143(1) was generated on 29.03.2021 and served on 30.03.2021 through all recognised modes, namely e-mail, SMS, and physical dispatch. These constitute valid service under section 282 of the Act read with Rule 127 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Thus, the date of service for the purpose of limitation stands clearly from the recordsrecords

4.1.7. The appellant has contended that he personally became aware of the intimation much later and has cited medical and age-related constraints. However, the courts have consistently held that valid statutory service is not dependent on the assessee personally opening, reading or acknowledging the communication. Once the Department dispatches the communication to the registered e-mail and postal addresses, service is deemed complete. The explanation that the appellant could not access e-mails does not, in law, postpone the commencement of limitation.

4.1.8. The appellant has also relied on the suo motu extension of limitation granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SMW(C) No. 306 of 2020 and MA No. 665 of 2021, contending that the delay deserves condonation. However, this reliance is misconceived, for several reasons:

(a) The Supreme Court's extension operated only to the extent of suspending limitation periods during the pandemic, not permitting indefinite or open-ended delays extending long after the relaxation window.

(b) Even after considering the extended limitation period applicable during the pandemic, the appeal in the present case remains delayed by several months beyond the outer limit fixed by the Hon'ble Court (90 days from 01.03.2022),

6 ITA No. 557/Mum/2026

(c) The suo motu orders require the litigant to act with reasonable diligence as soon as the impediments cease. Here, even after the appellant admits that he became aware of the intimation and consulted his Chartered Accountant, there is no evidence of any immediate or prompt action taken to file the appeal within the extended time available.

(d) Multiple High Courts have held that the Supreme Court's COVID- period relaxation cannot revive gross, unexplained, and prolonged delays, particularly where the assessee did not act even after gaining full knowledge of the order.

Thus, the case law cited by the appellant does not assist his case in the facts before me.

4.1.9. I also note that the explanation furnished by the appellant, though sincerely stated, fails to address the entire period of delay: The affidavit explains the difficulties in early 2021; however, there is no justification for the prolonged inaction thereafter, particularly for the period after the appellant admittedly came to know of the intimation and after the Supreme Court's outer limitation period expired. The law is well-settled that condonation requires demonstration of sufficient cause covering the entire span of delay, and any gap or unexplained period is fatal to the request.

4.1.10. The statute provides a clear and mandatory period of 30 days for filing of an appeal, and condonation of delay is an exception, not the rule. While advancing age and illness are mitigating circumstances deserving sympathetic consideration, they cannot by themselves override the statutory framework prolonged and inadequately explained.

4.1.11. The delay is considerable and it cannot be disputed that the onus to show that sufficient cause exists for condonation of delay lies upon the appellant. It is obligatory upon the appellant to show sufficient cause due to which appellantwas prevented from filing the appeal in time. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh &Ors, dated 08/07/2010(Civil appeal No. 1166 of 2006) is relevant in the instant

7 ITA No. 557/Mum/2026

case, where it has held in para 6 that "Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribed and the courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds".

4.1.12. The order supra also refers to various judgments where it has been held that "here is no question of construing the expression 'sufficient cause' liberally either because the party in default is the Government or because the question arises in connection with the impleading of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent. The provisions of the Code are with a view to advance the cause of justice have also applied the principle of 'reasonable time'. This, however, does not mean that the Court should readily accept whatever the appellant alleges to explain away his default

4.1.13. The decision supra also holds that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to apply parimateria. Section 3 of the Limitation Act requires that suits or proceedings instituted after the prescribed period of limitation shall be dismissed. However, in terms of Section 5, the discretion is vested in the Court/Appellate Authority to admit an appeal or an application, after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, if the appellant shows sufficient cause' for not preferring the application within the prescribed time. In this case the applicant has failed to explain the reasons for inordinate delay of almost2 years.

4.1.14. Further, recently, in case of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Dabra Vs Pyare Ram &Ors arising out of SLP (C) No. 15793/2019 dated 31/01/2023 dismissed the delay condonation applications filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, declining to condone a delay of 254 days, because the reasons assigned for the condonation were not sufficient reasons for condolation of the delay.

4.1.15. In the present case, the explanation offered, though honest and humane, does not meet the standard of "sufficient cause under section 249(3), particularly when assessed against the undisputed service records and the considerable time lag involved.

4.2. In view of the above facts, legal position, and judicial principles, I am constrained to hold that this inordinate delay is not condonable in

8 ITA No. 557/Mum/2026

absence of sufficient cause and in presence of unreasonable, inordinate and enormous delay in filing of appeal. Respectfully following the ratio in the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon and discussion made in foregoing para's delay in filing of appeal is not condoned. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, the appeal/filed by the appellant is dismissed

9 ITA No. 557/Mum/2026

Order pronounced in the open court on 19.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 19/06/2026

10 ITA No. 557/Mum/2026

RY, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. धिभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy//

उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai