SHINE KUMAR PARAMBIL,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 42(3)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8194/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 October 2026AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and the overall facts and circumstances, decided to condone the delay in filing both appeals before the CIT(A). The Tribunal emphasized that the cause of substantial justice deserves preference over technical considerations. The assessee's explanation for the delay, relating to a change in email address and not being well-versed with technicalities of notice service, was accepted as a valid reason, despite the assessment being completed ex-parte under Section 144 r.w.s. 147. The Tribunal condoned the delay subject to the payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Income Tax Department. Consequently, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and both matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to afford the assessee a fair and reasonable opportunity, and the assessee was directed to be more vigilant in future.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shine Kumar Parambil, filed two appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai Bench against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dated 15/05/2026. One appeal (ITA No. 8194/Mum/2026) challenged an addition made in the quantum assessment for Assessment Year 2016-2017, and the other (ITA No. 8193/Mum/2026) challenged the penalty levied under Section 270A. The assessee had faced a delay of 308 days in filing the quantum appeal and 120 days in filing the penalty appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had dismissed both appeals as unadmitted due to this delay. The assessee explained that the delay occurred because he had changed his email address and was not checking his old account, thus missing the assessment order. He engaged a Chartered Accountant after January 2025 and then became aware of the orders.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the quantum appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2016-2017 should be condoned, considering the assessee's explanation regarding a change in email address and subsequent discovery of the assessment order passed under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the penalty order under Section 270A before the Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2016-2017 should be condoned, based on similar reasons as the quantum appeal. Assessee's Contentions: - The delay was not intentional or deliberate but due to a change in email address and lack of technical knowledge. - The CIT(A) did not decide the appeals on merits. - The matters should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merit. - The assessee is willing to pay costs. Revenue's Contentions: - The assessee is relying on a self-serving story. - The delay may not be condoned. - Alternatively, if the delay is condoned, the assessee should be burdened with exemplary costs.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 147,Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH & SHRI RAKESH KUMAR LODHAAND

For Appellant: Shri Aditya
For Respondent: Shri Prasad
Hearing: 21.10.2026Pronounced: 22.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI RAKESH KUMAR LODHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8193/MUM/2026 AND ITA No.8194/MUM/2026 Assessment Year: 2016-2017 SHINE KUMAR ITO,WARD 42(3)(3) PARAMBIL Kautilya Bhavan, Poomthenaruvi-40, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mohilli Village, Mumbai Bandra East, Mumbai 400 072, Maharashtra 400 051 PAN- ARLPP0492M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Aditya Ramchandran, CA Revenue Represented by : Shri Prasad Menkudale, Sr.DR

Date of Hearing : 21.10.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 22.10.2026

O R D E R PER : Shri Rakesh Kumar Lodha, Accountant Member:

ITA NO. 8193 MUM 2026 AND 8194 MUM 2026 SHINE KUMAR PARAMBIL AY 2016 -2017 These two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(A), both dated 15/05/2026. In ITA No. 8194/Mum/2026, the assessee has challenged the addition made in the quantum assessment, whereas in ITA No. 8193/Mum/2026, the assessee has challenged the validity of the penalty levied u/s. 270A of the Act. Since, certain facts are common to both appeals, these appeals were clubbed and heard together, with the consent of both the parties, and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Rival submissions advanced by both parties have been heard and recorded. The Ld. Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) of the assessee submitted that there was a delay of 308 days in filing the quantum appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and a delay of 120 days in filing the appeal against the penalty order before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The Ld. AR of the Assessee submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate. The Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in both the appeals and resultantly dismissed both the appeals as unadmitted. The assessee had filed his own affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A), explaining the reasons for the delay.

4.

The Ld. AR submitted that the quantum assessment was completed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 10/03/2025, whereas the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed on 11/02/2026. The assessee had been using the email address “shinekumarmailbox@gmail.com” for income-tax proceedings. However, after the Assessment year 2020-21, he changed his email address to “shine.shinekumar@gmail.com”. Since the assessee was not regularly

ITA NO. 8193 MUM 2026 AND 8194 MUM 2026 SHINE KUMAR PARAMBIL AY 2016 -2017 checking his earlier email account, so, the assessment order remained unnoticed. Although certain responses were furnished during the assessment proceedings, the assessee was filing his income-tax returns himself and was not well versed with the technicalities relating to the service of notices has been dispensed with by the Income Tax Department in January 2025, upon engaging the services of a professional Chartered Accountant, the assessee came to know that the assessment order and the penalty order had been passed and thereafter immediately filed both appeals before the Ld. CIT(A).

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has a good case on merits and is likely to succeed if the delay is condoned and he has given liberty to contest the cases on merit, the Ld. AR of the assessee submits that Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal on merit. Therefore, both the matters may be restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merit. He undertakes on behalf of assessee to be more vigilant in future. On the other hand the Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that assessee is relying on self serving story. The delay may not be condoned in appeal filing; alternatively the Ld. Sr. DR submits that in case the bench is inclined to condone the delay and to allow further opportunity. The Assessee should be burdened with exemplary cost.

6.

In short rejoinder submission, the Ld. AR of the Assessee submits that the assessee had already suffered cost of litigation and appeal fees of more

ITA NO. 8193 MUM 2026 AND 8194 MUM 2026 SHINE KUMAR PARAMBIL AY 2016 -2017 that Rs. 10,000/- in both appeals, is still, the Bench, if considered appropriate may impose some minimum.

7.

We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties. We find that the assessment was completed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. No doubt the assessee has made certain compliances however, the addition was made for the want of compliance and evidence by the Assessee. The assessment order was completed on 10/03/2025, whereas the appeal in quantum assessment was filed on 11/02/2026 before us. The Ld. AR of the Assessee vehemently contended that the delay was not intentional rather to the facts explained which we have recorded herein above.

8.

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and keeping in view that the cause of substantial justice deserves preference over technical considerations, we condone the delay in filing both appeals before the Ld. CIT(A), subject to payment of costs of Rs. 5,000/- to the Income Tax Department.

9.

Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside and both matters are restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. Needless to say, the Ld. CIT(A) shall afford the assessee a fair and reasonable opportunity to the Assessee. The assessee is also directed to be more vigilant in future in making timely compliance with the aforesaid directions.

ITA NO. 8193 MUM 2026 AND 8194 MUM 2026 SHINE KUMAR PARAMBIL AY 2016 -2017 10. In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (RAKESH KUMAR LODHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 22.10.2026. Sharath, Private Secretary. 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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →