ZAID MOHAMMED ANWAR RANGWALA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 7600/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 February 2026AY 2019-20206 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 53 days in filing the appeals. It reasoned that the explanation provided by the assessee, including the lack of timely notification of the CIT(A)'s order and the change in tax consultants, constituted sufficient cause. The Tribunal relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 47), emphasizing a liberal approach to condoning delays to advance substantial justice and avoid technicalities defeating meritorious matters. The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. On merits, the Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders passed by the CIT(A) and remitted the matters to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was based on the principles of natural justice, acknowledging that the orders were passed without an effective opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order after considering evidence, potentially calling for a remand report from the AO, and granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee was also directed to cooperate in the proceedings. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Zaid Mohammed Anwar Rangwala, filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Years (AY) 2018-19 and 2019-20. These appeals were against separate orders dated 30/07/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai. The assessee sought condonation of a delay of 53 days in filing these appeals. The delay was attributed to the assessee not receiving timely notification of the CIT(A)'s order, which was uploaded on the income-tax portal, and to issues with previous tax consultants. The assessee stated that upon appointing new consultants, the order was discovered, and immediate steps were taken to file the appeals.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 53 days in filing the appeals is liable to be condoned on the grounds of sufficient cause, turning on the interpretation of "sufficient cause" under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the delay was due to not receiving communication of the CIT(A)'s order via email or SMS, and his infrequent access to the income-tax portal. The change in tax consultants also contributed to the unawareness. The delay was bona fide and not deliberate, warranting condonation based on the principles laid down in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 47). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, represented by the CIT DR, was unable to controvert the factual submissions made by the assessee but objected to the remand of the matter. 2. Whether the ex parte orders passed by the CIT(A) are liable to be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication, considering the principles of natural justice and the opportunity of being heard. Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that the CIT(A)'s orders were ex parte because notices were not received on the email ID provided in Form No. 35, preventing effective compliance and the submission of relevant evidence. The assessee prayed for a remand to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with consideration of all issues and available evidence. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue objected to the remand of the matter.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

None explicitly mentioned in the provided text, other than general reference to the Income Tax Act, 1961.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri Kutbuddin Kuresh Dahiwala - Advcoate

For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR

Hearing: 10.02.2026Pronounced: 13.02.2026

Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeals filed by the assessee arise out of separate orders even dated 30/07/2025 passed by the Ld.CIT(A)-52, Mumbai [hereinafter the “Ld.CIT(A)”] for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019- 20.

At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, there is a delay of 52 days in filing the present appeals before this Tribunal. In support of the petition for condonation of delay, assessee has furnished following affidavit for both years under consideration:-

1. ***This space is left blank intentionally. P.t.o.*** & 7600/Mum/2025 & 7600/Mum/2025

We have perused the affidavit filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay of 53 days in filing the present appeal. From the affidavit, it is explained that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was uploaded on the income-tax portal without the assessee receiving any effective communication or notification by email or SMS. The assessee, being an individual who does not regularly access the income-tax portal except for filing returns, remained unaware of the order. It is further stated that the assessee’s erstwhile tax consultants were not effectively handling his tax matters and that upon appointment of new consultants, the impugned order was noticed and immediate steps were taken to file the appeal. The assessee has affirmed that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to bona fide reasons and inadvertent circumstances beyond his control.

1. 2.1.1. We find that the explanation offered constitutes sufficient cause. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. Reported in 167 ITR 47, has held that a liberal approach should be adopted in condoning delays so as to advance substantial justice and that technical considerations should not defeat meritorious matters. Considering the facts stated in the affidavit, the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and in the interest of substantial justice, we are satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed time.

1. Accordingly, the delay of 53 days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

1. On merits, the Ld. AR submitted that the impugned order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) are ex parte orders. He submitted that the assessee did not receive the notices issued by the Ld. First Appellate Authority on the email ID mentioned in Form No. 35 and, therefore, was prevented from making effective compliance before the Ld.CIT(A). It was contended that due to lack of proper opportunity, the assessee could not place the relevant evidences on record. The Ld. AR thus prayed that the matter may be remanded to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering all issues in the light of evidences available with the assessee.

1. 3.1. On the other hand, the Ld. DR, though unable to controvert the factual submissions made by the Ld. AR, objected to the remand of the matter.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides and considered the material available on record.

Considering the principles of natural justice and the fact that the impugned orders have been passed ex parte without effective opportunity to the assessee, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remit the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law after duly considering the evidence and documents that may be furnished by the assessee and after calling for, if necessary, a remand report from the Ld. AO. Needless to say, the Ld.CIT(A) shall grant the assessee Accordingly, grounds raised by assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →