What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the assessee's circumstances and interest in pursuing the case on merits. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh assessment order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.

The assessee, a senior citizen, filed an appeal before the CIT(A) with a delay of 90 days due to unfamiliarity with e-communication. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay. The assessment order was passed ex-parte.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) should be condoned and the matter restored for fresh assessment.

Dinkar Pandurang Sawant vs ITO | ITAT Mumbai 2026

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by assesseeis directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) / NFAC

dated 28.11.2025 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2015-16.

Rival submissions of both parties have been heard and record perused

carefully.The learned authorised representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee

fairly submits that there was delay of 90 days in filing appeal before ld.

CIT(A). The delay was intentional nor deliberate. The assessee is a

senior citizen and was not well versed with the use of e-mail and ITBA

system. The assessment order was passed on 19.01.2024 and the appeal

was filed on 18.05.2024 as the assessee was not well versed with the e-

communication, therefore, he could not realise about passing of bill of

assessment order. The assessee is interested in pursuing his case on

ITA No. 604/MUM/2026 (A.Y. 2015-16) DinkarPandurangSawant

merit. The assessment was also completed ex-parte and ld CIT(A)

dismissed the appeal in limine by not condoning the delay. The ld. AR of

the assessee submits that delay in filing appeal before CIT(A) may be

condoned and matter may be restored back to the file of jurisdictional

assessing officer to pass the assessment order afresh. She undertakes on

behalf of the assessee to be more vigilant in future making timely

compliance.

On the other hand, learned Commissioner of Income Tax – Departmental

Representative (ld. CIT-DR) not opposed the plea of condonation of

delay and for restoring the matter back to the file of assessing officer.

We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties.

Considering the facts and circumstances explained before us that delay

in filing appeal before ld. CIT(A) was not intentional. The assessee is

interested in pursuing his case on merit. Therefore, the delay in filing

appeal before ld. CIT(A) is condoned. Further, considering the fact that

assessing officer as well as ld. CIT(A) has not considered the merits of

the case. Therefore, the matter is restored back to the file of

jurisdictional assessing officer to pass the assessment order afresh.

Needless to direct that before passing the order, the assessing officer

shall allow reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is

directed to be more vigilant and to furnish all details and written

submission in support of his claim. In the result, the grounds of appeal

allowed for statistical purpose.

ITA No. 604/MUM/2026 (A.Y. 2015-16) DinkarPandurangSawant

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

purpose.

Order announced in open court at the time of hearing.

Sd- Sd-

MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

MUMBAI, Dated:22/04/2026 Biswajit

Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai

DINKAR PANDURANG SAWANT,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 26(1)(4), MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments