IBRAHIM MIRA TAMBOLI ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 27(1)(4), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA No.19/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2010-11)

Mr. Ibrahim Mira Tamboli, ITO 27(1)(4), 4th Floor, Tower 6, B-48 Gurudev Apartments Chembur Naka, Vs. Income Tax Office, Chembur, Vashi Railway Station Bldg. Mumbai – 400 071 Navi Mumbai – 400 703 PAN:ABTPT5212B (Appellant) (Respondent) :

: None Assessee by Respondent by : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 30.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 27.04.2026

O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM:

This appeal challenges 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'), relevant to Assessment Year

(‘A.Y.’ for short) 2010-11.

“1 The Ld. CIT(A) erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law by dismissing the appeal without considering the merits of the case by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, thereby failing to appreciate that the term 'sufficient cause' should receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice, as no male fide intention or deliberate negligence can be attributed to the appellant.

ITA No.19/Mum/2026 Mr. Ibrahim Mira Tamboli 3. As none appeared on behalf of the assessee, we hereby proceed to dispose of this

appeal by hearing the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR” for short) and on

perusal of the materials available on record.

days beyond the period of limitation for which the Ld. DR had no objection to condone the

said delay. Hence, the delay is hereby condoned.

concern named M/s. Shine Constructions engaged in civil construction business for CPWD

and other central government department. The assessee had filed his return of income

declaring total income at Rs.5,04,662/- dated 01.03.2011 and the same was processed u/s

143(1) of the Act. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny and assessment order dated

22.03.2013 was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act where the Learned Assessing Officer (“for

short “Ld. AO”) determined the total income at Rs.38,20,889/- after making various

additions/disallowances. The Ld. AO also initiated penalty proceeding and order u/s

271(1)(c) of the Act dated 29.03.2016 was passed where penalty amounting to

Rs.10,13,348/- was levied.

challenging the impugned penalty order. The Ld. CIT(A) vide an order dated 09.10.2025

dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in-limine without condoning the delay of 205

days caused in filing the first appeal which was beyond the period of limitation.

ITA No.19/Mum/2026 Mr. Ibrahim Mira Tamboli 7. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the Ld.

CIT(A).

observed that the assessee had filed the first appeal manually and then e-filed another

appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which had caused a delay of 205 days. The assessee

contended before the Ld. CIT(A) that the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate as

the assessee was unaware of the notification issued by the Department to file all appeals

electronically and since the earlier circulars stated that the appeal can be filed manually the

assessee was on the belief that the appeal would be treated to be filed on time. The Ld.

CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contention that the initial dismissal order of the Ld. CIT(A)

was passed on 13.07.2018 but the assessee filed online appeal only on 12.03.2019, where

the Ld. CIT(A) had also explicitly granted liberty to the assessee to e-file a fresh appeal

with delay condonation request. But the assessee is said to have filed the e-file appeal with

a delay of more than 200 days. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the assessee’s contention stating

that there was no ‘sufficient cause’ explained by the assessee for the said delay.

more opportunity to present his case before the Ld. CIT(A) for the reason that the assessee

has duly explained the reason for the delay in filing the first appeal. As there being a

‘sufficient cause’ for the delay, we hereby set aside all the issues and direct the Ld. CIT(A)

to condone the delay in filing the appeal and to decide the issue on the merits of the case

after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing, thereby adhering to the principles of natural

justice and in the interest of justice dispensation.

ITA No.19/Mum/2026 Mr. Ibrahim Mira Tamboli

purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27.04.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai; Dated: 27.04.2026 * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard File BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai