Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for being belated by 56 days. The assessee sought condonation of delay, citing that the penalty order was received via email to an accountant's old, rarely checked email ID. The assessee claimed ignorance until they logged into the portal.
Held
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was bona fide and due to circumstances beyond the appellant's control. Considering the principles of substantial justice, the Tribunal condoned the delay.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned on the grounds of sufficient cause, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities of limitation.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI OM PRAKSH KANT
This appeal filed by the assesse is arising out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax,(Appeals)-47, Mumbai [hereafter, Ld.CIT(A)], dated 26/03/2025 for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. At the outset, we noticed that the assessee has raised additional ground of appeal
, thereby challenging the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
3. We are of the view that the additional ground being raised is emanating from the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and no prejudice shall be caused to the respondent in 2 ITA 2929/Mum/2025 Sanjay Jagdish Patel case the present application is allowed. Consequently, the present application is allowed and assesse is allowed to raise the additional ground.
All the grounds raised by the assesse are inter-related ad inter-connected and reference to challenging the order of Ld.CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal by holding that there is no ‘sufficient cause’ in filing the appeal belatedly by 56 days. Therefore, we have decided to adjudicate all the grounds by the present consolidated order.
5. We have heard the arguments of both the counsels, perused the materials placed on record, judgements cited before me and also the order passed by the revenue authorities. From the records we find that the appeal of the assessee was filed belatedly by 56 days and in this regard a request for seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal was filed, which is extracted below:- “Request for Condonation of delay
1. The Penalty Order was passed on June 28, 2023.
2. However, the Appellant got to know of the Order on September 8, 2023.
3. The Appellant logged into the income tax portal on September 8, 2023, and saw the order in e-proceedings tab.
4. Upon seeing the Order, the Appellant checked the email id on which the earlier Notices were sent, and saw that the email id was 'jiteshb1987@rediffmail.com' (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rediff email id).
The Rediff email id belongs to an accountant Mr. Balkrishna Thik. Mr. Balkrishna Thik is a senior citizen of over 65 years of age. Due to his senior age, he is not very tech savvy.
6. Thereafter, the Appellant asked the accountant to check the email id for last week of June 2023 and first week of July 2023.
The Order was emailed to the Rediff email id on June 30, 2023.
3 ITA 2929/Mum/2025 Sanjay Jagdish Patel 8. The accountant does not regularly work with the Assessee now. The accountant is of senior age of 65 years. Also, hundreds of emails are received on his Rediff email id, making it all the more difficult for him to track emails.
The accountant missed this email and could not inform the Appellant of the same at the time when the Order was received in email from income tax.
The Appellant's email id is 'k.belsare@yahoo.com' which is mentioned in the income tax return filed for AY 2021-22 and also AY 2022-23 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Yahoo email id).
Upon logging in on the portal and seeing the Order, the Appellant immediately changed the email id on the portal as well.
Upon logging in on the portal and seeing the Order, the Appellant immediately started preparing to file an appeal and is now filing the appeal.
Accordingly, the date of service of the penalty order should be considered as September 8, 2023, being the date on which the Appellant took note of the Order.
The Appeal to CIT(A) needs to be filed within 30 days from the date of service of the order.
The Appeal is being filed within 30 days from the service of the order.
If the date of passing the order is considered, the delay is of 54 days.
I request your goodself to condone the delay and admit the appeal.
It is prayed that delay in filing the appeal be condoned and the appeal be admitted.
The delay is bona fide, and I would be at no benefit or gain because of the delay. There is no deliberate delay, culpable negligence or malafide intentions on my part.
Substantial justice would be denied to me if the condonation is not approved, hence, I request your goodself to condone the delay and admit the appeal and the case be heard on merit.”
After having gone through the facts of the case, we notice that the appeal was dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) by holding as under:-
4 ITA 2929/Mum/2025 Sanjay Jagdish Patel “6.4 From the company search over Google it is noted that Sh Ketan Krishna Belsare is a director in various companies and registered with Ministry of Corporate Affairs. His Director Identification Number (DIN) is 02715067. As per the company search, Sh Ketan Krishna Belsare is/has been associated with as many as 13 companies. It is also found from the company search that Sh Ketan Krishna Belsare and Sh Balkrishna Thik are Directors in the company Ellora Pioneers Private Limited. As per the records, Sh Balkrishna Thik was appointed as Director of Ellora Pioneers Private Limited on 28-02-2019. Interestingly, the contact email address for the company Ellora Pioneers Private Limited given is belsare@yahoo.com. Thus, it is a strange situation where in case of company, the contact email id is that of the appellant, while in case of appellant himself, the email id is that of the other director. In fact, before me, the appellant has blatantly lied about the credentials of Sh Balkrishna Antu Thik and tried to misguide by providing wrong information about him by trying to put the blame on him as his 'accountant', while in fact, he is one of the Directors in the company in which the other Director is the appellant. Thus, the appellant has acted in an irresponsible manner both at the time of filing of appeal and now during appellate proceedings.”
7. Be that as it may, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that rights of any of the parties may not be scuttled down only on account of the fact that the appeal was not filed within the period of limitation. Therefore, considering the entire factual position as explained before us and also keeping in view the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs MST Kattiji & Ors [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], wherein it has been held that where substantial justice is pitted against technicalities of non deliberate delay, then in that eventuality, substantial justice should be preferred. Therefore, in our view, the principles of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance and considering the explanation putforth by assessee by justifiably and properly explaining the delay, which occurred in filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A) and construing the expression ‘sufficient cause’ liberally, we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Consequently, we condoned the delay.
5 ITA 2929/Mum/2025 Sanjay Jagdish Patel 8. Since we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal before CIT(A), therefore, we restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the appeal on the merits of the grounds raised before him.