ADHISH SAMEER TENDULKAR ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 22(1)(6), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7410/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 April 2026AY 2012-136 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation plausible and unintentional. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, as the previous order was ex-parte.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an NRI residing in Canada, filed an appeal with a significant delay of 443 days. The delay was attributed to the non-receipt of the CIT(A)'s order due to an outdated email address and reliance on a previous consultant.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal is justifiable and whether the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing it ex-parte.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 69A,Section 226

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. D.R
Hearing: 22.04.2026Pronounced: 22.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.7410/M/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Adhish Sameer Tendulkar, Income Tax Officer C/o. Adv. Sameer Tendulkar, 9, (ITO), 22 (1)(6), 5th Floor Om Siddhivanayak Vs. Room No.108, 1st Floor, CHS, Dilip Gupte Rd, Mahim, Piramal Chambers, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400016 Lal Baug, Mumbai - 400012 PAN – APCPT5095B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. A.R. Revenue by : Shri Kiran K. Chhatrapati, Ld. Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 22.04.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 10.06.2024, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2012-13.

2.

At the outset it is observed that there is delay of 443 days in filing of the instant appeal on which the Assessee, more or less, has claimed as under: “Sub: Condonation of delay in filing Appeal before Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal-ITAT Mumbai Bench With reference to the above I humbly request your honor to kindly condone the delay in filing of appeal against the order of the Hon'able CIT(A) - National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC]. on account of sufficient and reasonable cause as explained below:

ITA No.7410/M/2025 2 Adhish Sameer Tendulkar

The Appellate Order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (herein referred to as "IT Act" was passed on 10.06.2024. The said order was uploaded online on E-Assessment Portal on 10.06.2024. The appeal was required to be filed within 60 days of receipt of the order. The due date for filing the appeal was 09.08.2024. The appeal is being filed on 17.11.2025. Hence the delay in filing this Appeal is 465 days.  The Appellant Mr. Adhish Sameer Tendulkar is NRI permanently residing in Canada, initially in the year 2021 he went to Toronto, Canada for the studies and thereafter he has continued to live in Canada for his employment since the year 2023 with various organizations in Canada.  The Appellant is B.E Computer Engineering from Mumbai University in the year 2015  The Appellant Pursued Masters Degree in the year 2021-23 in Global Affairs from the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto in the City of Toronto, Canada.  The Appellant Worked with TELUS, in the year 2022 as Graduate Teaching Assistant with University of Toronto Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy.  The Appellant Worked as a Government & Regulatory Affairs Compliance Advisor for Tundra Technical Solutions in the year 2023- 2024 Ontario, Canada. Toronto  The Appellant is Presently working with Ontario Energy Board, Canada as analyst-Performance Analyst & Reporting. 1. At the outset, It is respectfully submitted that the delay in Filing of Appeal Before the Honorable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai Bench was not intentional, but due to the fact that, the Order u/s 250 was passed by the Honorable CIT(A) - National Faceless Appeal Centre on 10.06.2024 and said order was not received by the Appellant, as stated above as he has been living in Canada since 2021. After moving to Canada, the Appellant had changed his email Id and discontinued his old email id tendulkaradhish.lice2009@gmail.com and has been using new Email ID atendulkar93@gmail.com Accordingly, the Appellant had No knowledge of such Order being passed. 2. On account of above, the Appellant was not aware about the Appellate Order passed for A.Y.2012-13 by the CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act on 10.06.2024, it is only when the Notice for the Recovery proceedings u/s. 226 of the IT Act dated 13.10.2025 initiating recovery of tax dues consequent to the Order of Honorable CIT(A) was RECIVED IN THE POST to the Appellant's father's address on 13.10.2025, the Appellant was shocked and surprised to know about the Appeal Order u/s 250 of the IT Act passed by the Honorable CIT(A) on 10.06.2024, dismissing the Appeal filed.

ITA No.7410/M/2025 3 Adhish Sameer Tendulkar

3.

The Appellant came to know only on 13.10.2025, about the Appeal Order. u/s 250 of the IT Act passed by the Honorable CIT(A) on 10.06.2024, dismissing the Appeal filed and confirming the Additions made by the L.d. A.O. in his, order dated 22.12.2019 when the Notice for the Recovery proceedings u/s. 226 of the IT Act dated 13.10.2025 initiating recovery of tax dues was received in the post by the Appellant on 13.10.2025. 4. On Receipt of Notice for the Recovery proceedings u/s. 226 of the IT Act dated 13.10.2025, the new Tax Consultant B.B. Shah & Co of the Appellant had logged into the E-Assessment Portal to ascertain about the reasons for Issuance of Notice for the Recovery proceedings u/s. 226 of the IT Act dated 13.10.2025. 5. On the Perusal of the Details on E-Assessment Portal, with the help of new consultant, the Appellant was shocked and surprised to ascertain that the Appeal Order u/s. 250 was passed by the Honorable CIT(A) on 10.06.2024, dismissing the Appeal confirming the Additions of Rs. 7,50,000/- made by the Ld. A.O. u/s. 69A of the IT Act vide order dated 22.12.2019. 6. It is respectfully submitted that the Appellant genuinely had No idea or knowledge of the Appeal order u/s. 250 of the IT Act passed by the honorable CIT (A) on 10.06.2024 and the Appellant was under BONAFIDE and GENIUNE BELIEF, that the Appellate Proceedings for the above year is pending before CIT(A). 7. In view of the above, the Appellant humbly prays before your honor and respectfully submits that the delay in filing of Appeal before your honor, was on account of genuine reasons as explained above by the Appellant of not receiving of Appeal Order u/s. 250 was passed by the Honorable CIT(A) on 10.06.2024 which was sent to his old email Id tendulkaradhish.lice2009@gmail.com which he had discontinued since the year 2021 when he moved to Canada and ever since has been using new Email ID atendulkar93@gmail.com Accordingly, the delay being on account of miscommunication on the old email ID and under the circumstances, beyond the control of the Appellant, without any malicious intention to delay the compliance or to cause any loss of time to the revenue authorities. 8. The Appellant humbly prays before your honor for condonation of delay of above 465 days in filing of appeal, against the order passed by the Honorable CIT(A) u/s 250 of the IT Act on 10.06.2024, dismissing the Appeal and confirming the Additions of Rs. 7,50,000/- made by the Ld. A.O. u/s. 69A of the IT Act vide order dated 22.12.2019, considering the fact that, there is genuine and sufficient cause for delay in filing of appeal on account of the Following: 9. The Appellant is an NRI, permanently residing in Canada had appointed a Consultant (Previous consultant) to look after his Taxation Matters in India. The details of the Appellant's stay in India, based on his Passport Entires of arrival departure is stated below: 10. The Appellant has totally relied upon the said (previous) Consultant for all the compliance related to the Taxation Matters in India, as he had been living in Canada since the year 2021.

ITA No.7410/M/2025 4 Adhish Sameer Tendulkar

11.

The Appeal order passed by the Honorable CIT(A) w/s. 250 of the IT Act on 10.06.2024, confirming the Additions of Rs. 7,50,000/- made by the Ld. A.O. u/s. 69A of the IT Act vide order dated 22.12.2019, was not received by the Appellant which was sent to his old email id tendulkaradhish.iice2009@gmail.com which he had discontinued since the year 2021 when he moved to Canada and ever since has been using new Email ID atendulkar93@gmail.com 12. The Appellant came to know of the Appeal order u/s 250 of the IT Act of the Honorable CIT(A) on 10.06.2024, only when the Notice for the Recovery proceedings u/s. 226 of the IT Act dated 13.10.2025 was received in post. The said Notice of recovery of tax dues was sent to the Appellant on 13.10.2025by Speed Post. 13. That the Appellant has filed the appeal on 17.11.2025 at the earliest opportunity immediately when he got to know of the Appeal order u/s 250 of the IT Act was passed by the Honorable CIT(A) on 10.06.2024. 14. Your honor would appreciate the fact that the cause of delay as explained by the Appellant is not malafide then the time period of delay may not be considered as a relevant factor, in order to avail substantial justice. The decisive factor in condonation of delay is not the length of delay but sufficiency of a satisfactory explanation. 15. ………………………………

Assuring your honour timely compliance in future I hereby respectfully request your honour to kindly grant pardon for the above laps and oblige.”

3.

Considering the reasons for delay of 443 days in filing of instant appeal, which are otherwise supported with duly sworn affidavit as plausible, reasonable, bona-fide and unintentional, the delay is condoned.

4.

Coming to the merits of the case, it is observed that both the orders passed by the authorities below are more or less ex-parte specifically, the impugned order, wherein though, various opportunities have been provided by the ld. Commissioner however, the Assessee made no compliance and therefore, in the constrained circumstances, the ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee without going into the merits of the case. Admittedly, the Assessee failed to file any submission and documents and therefore, the issue involved also remains to be adjudicated in its right

ITA No.7410/M/2025 5 Adhish Sameer Tendulkar

perspective and proper manner. As observed above, the ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the Assessee, without touching the merits of the case, which is not permissible, as the ld. Commissioner was under obligation to decide this appeal, on the basis of merits of the case.

5.

Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality and the conduct of the Assessee, this Court deem it appropriate to remand the instant case to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh, suffice it to say by affording reasonable opportunity to the Assessee and subject to deposit of Rs.11,000/- by the Assessee, in the Revenue Department under ‘other heads’ within 15 days of this order.

6.

This court clarify that the Assessee would be at liberty to raise all legal grounds as emanates from the record and/or case of the Assessee.

7.

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.04.2026.

Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (Tarun Kushwaha) Sr. Private Secretary

ITA No.7410/M/2025 6 Adhish Sameer Tendulkar

Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench

//True Copy//

By Order

Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →