Suryakant Shantaram Bane Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Summary: The Mumbai ITAT condoned a delay of 608 days in filing the assessee’s first appeal against an assessment order making an addition of Rs.70 lakh as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead of filing an appeal against the assessment order dated 07.03.2024, the assessee had pursued a revision petition under section 264 on 29.08.2024. The assessee explained that the email address recorded in the proceedings was not his email address and, consequently, he remained unaware that the revision petition had been disposed of on 16.10.2025.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee’s consultant subsequently discovered the disposal of the revision petition during a routine inspection of the income-tax portal. After obtaining advice from another counsel, the assessee filed the statutory first appeal, though with a delay of 608 days. The explanation for the delay was supported by a duly sworn affidavit.
Considering the peculiar facts, the ITAT held that the explanation was prima facie plausible, bona fide and sufficient. There was nothing on record to indicate that the delay was deliberate or attributable to any mala fide intention. The Tribunal was therefore satisfied that sufficient cause prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the prescribed period and accordingly condoned the entire delay of 608 days.
Since the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal in limine solely on limitation without adjudicating the substantive grounds, the ITAT remanded the matter for fresh adjudication on merits. The Commissioner was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, consider the material and submissions on record, decide each ground in accordance with law and pass a speaking order. The assessee was also directed to cooperate and furnish the requisite documents without unnecessary delay. The appeal was accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.
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 email 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.
