REKHABEN SURESH SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6855/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 July 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Ld. Commissioner failed to consider the Hon'ble Apex Court's order regarding the exclusion of time due to Covid-19. The delay was re-computed to be 164 days, which was condoned, and the case was remanded.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the Ld. Commissioner as time-barred due to a delay of 1055 days. The delay occurred from the assessment order date of 26.11.2019 to the filing of the appeal on 15.11.2022.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the first appeal is condonable considering the Covid-19 period and the reasons provided by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144,Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Nara, Ld. A.R
For Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Ld. Sr. D.R
Hearing: 12.06.2025Pronounced: 28.07.2025

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 28.10.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC)/ 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. 2017-18.

2.

In this case the assessment order was passed on 26.11.2019 u/s 144 of the Act against which the Assessee preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner who vide impugned order ultimately dismissed the appeal of the Assessee in limine as time barred by observing and holding as under:

“ There is a delay of 1055 days in filing of first appeal before him and the Assessee has failed to provide any appealing reason or supporting evidence to justify a delay over 1000 days. The reasons provided are general and do not constitute a “sufficient cause” as required u/s 249(3) of the Act.”

3.

This Court has given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and observe that the assessment order was passed on 26.11.2010 and therefore the Assessee was supposed to file first appeal within one month i.e. on or before 25th of December 2019 but the appeal was filed on 15.11.2022 and therefore the Ld. Commissioner construed the delay as 1055 days.

4.

Admittedly, Covid-19 was started in March, 2020 which remained until May-June 2022 and therefore considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, as the entire nation was on hold during that time, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of suo-moto Writ Petition (c) No.3 OF 2020 vide order dated 10.01.2022 in Re: Cognizance for extension of limitation, has excluded the time period i.e. 15th March 2020 to 28th February 2022 for computing the time limit in filing of appropriate proceedings including appeal before the Appellate Authority and thus the period can be concluded as under:

Date of assessment 26.11.2019 Actual delay if any order First appeal was to be 25.12.2019 filed on or before Hon’ble Supreme Court 15th March 2020 to 28th has exempted the period February 2022 upto The Assessee ultimately 15.11.2022 filed the appeal on Delay occurred started 25-12-2019 80 days before Covid-19 to 14-03-2020 Period excluded by 21.03.2020 Hon’ble Apex Court to 22.07.2022 Time started from 23- 23-07-2022 onwards 84 days 07- 2022 as per Hon’ble and therefore the appeal Apex Court Judgment was supposed to be filed on or before 22-08- 2022 and thereafter delay started and ended on 15-11-2022 and thus delay would be 80+84 = 164days Thus total delay would be

5.

May be due to oversight or inadvertently, the Ld. Commissioner failed to take cognizance of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case. Thus the delay can be computed as 164 days only. Thus, considering reasons for delay as explained by the Assessee by submitting “that she being an uneducated, unfamiliar with computers and hence was unaware of the electronic notices issued by the Department, further, the Assessee has also changed her residence and therefore she could not receive physical notices and even some disputes were going on with previous consultant, who was handling the case, which also resulted in delay in filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner”, as bonafide, unintentional and genuine, the delay of 164 days in filling of first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, is condoned and consequently the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision on merit, suffice to say, by affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.07.2025.

More judgments on Section 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →