Late Suryakant Shantaram Bane Late Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Even a substantial delay can be condoned where the assessee pursued a bona fide alternative remedy and the delay was not deliberate
In Suryakant Shantaram Bane, the Mumbai ITAT adopted a pragmatic approach to condonation of delay where the assessee had initially pursued a wrong statutory remedy under section 264 instead of filing the first appeal against the assessment. The assessment had resulted in an addition under section 69, but rather than immediately approaching the CIT(A), the assessee filed a revision petition under section 264. Complicating matters, the proceedings contained an incorrect email address, and the assessee therefore remained unaware that the revision petition had subsequently been disposed of; the fact of disposal came to light only when the consultant checked the income-tax portal. Thereafter, on obtaining fresh legal advice, the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A), albeit with a delay of 608 days. The ITAT held that the explanation, supported by a sworn affidavit, was prima facie plausible, bona fide and sufficient, and there was nothing indicating that the delay was deliberate or motivated by mala fide conduct. The Tribunal therefore condoned the entire delay and, importantly, did not itself decide the underlying section 69 addition: since the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal at the threshold on limitation without examining the merits, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on every ground, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing and passing a speaking order. At the same time, the Tribunal cautioned the assessee that documents and submissions must now be furnished without unnecessary delay and that there would be no further leniency for unjustified default. The broader principle is that substantial justice can prevail over limitation where the taxpayer demonstrates a genuine, documented and bona fide reason for the delay, particularly where the taxpayer was actively pursuing another legal remedy; however, condonation of delay does not amount to success on the merits—the underlying dispute still has to be decided by the appellate authority.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 20.02.2026, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (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. 2016-17. 2. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the instant appeal are that the assessment was completed vide order dated 07.03.2024, passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, whereby the Assessing Officer (in short, “AO”) made an addition of Rs.70,00,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The Assessee challenged the said addition by filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, however, with a delay of 608 days. 3. In Column No.15 of Form No.35, the Assessee explained the delay as under:
“We request your Honor to consider our delay for filing the appeal with you for our client Suryakant Shantaram Bane for AY 2016-17, we have opted for Application for Revision u/s. 264 of the Income Tax Act 1961 as the same was not in their jurisdiction. Revision was set aside with suggestion to file an appeal with Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal. We shall greatly appreciate your co-operation to admit this appeal.”
4. It appears from the affidavit filed by the Assessee that, instead of filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner against the assessment order, the Assessee filed a revision petition u/s 264 of the Act on 29.08.2024. It was explained that the e-mail address recorded in the proceedings was “[email protected]” instead of the Assessee’s e-mail address, i.e., “[email protected]”, and, therefore, the Assessee remained unaware of the disposal of the revision petition. 5. Subsequently, during a routine inspection of the income-tax portal, the consultant of the Assessee became aware that the revision petition had already been disposed of vide order dated 16.10.2025. Thereafter, upon obtaining advice from another counsel, the Assessee filed the first appeal, albeit with a delay of 608 days. In support of the application seeking condonation of delay, the Assessee also filed a duly sworn affidavit explaining the aforesaid circumstances. 6. We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is evident that the Assessee had pursued the remedy of revision u/s 264 of the Act against the assessment order and, upon becoming aware of the disposal thereof, filed the statutory appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. The explanation furnished by the Assessee, duly supported by an affidavit, prima facie appears to be plausible, bona fide and sufficient to explain the delay. There is nothing on record to suggest that the delay was deliberate or occasioned by any mala fide intention. 7. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the first appeal within the prescribed period. Accordingly, the delay of 608 days in filing the first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner is condoned. 8. Coming to the merits, since the Ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground of limitation without adjudicating the issues on merits, we deem it appropriate to remand the case to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for adjudication afresh on merits. 9. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the file of the Ld. Commissioner for decision afresh on merits, suffice to say, by affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee and considering the material and submissions placed or to be placed on record. The Ld. Commissioner shall decide each ground raised by the Assessee in accordance with law and pass a speaking order. The Assessee is also directed to furnish the requisite documents and submissions in support of its claim without unnecessary delay or default. We clarify that, in case of any unjustified default, the Assessee shall not be entitled to any leniency. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21.08.2026.
