Mayur Govindbhai Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Summary: The Mumbai ITAT disposed of three appeals filed by the same assessee for AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2016-17 through a common order because identical issues were involved. Applying the first-case/first-citation rule, the principal matter was ITA No.4177/Mum/2025 for AY 2011-12. In that appeal, the assessee challenged the NFAC/CIT(A) order dated 06.02.2025, which had dismissed his appeal against the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 263 and 144B. The appeal before the Tribunal was delayed by 51 days. The assessee sought condonation and setting aside of the ex-parte appellate order, relying upon a sworn affidavit explaining why neither the CIT(A) proceedings nor the appellate order had come to his notice in time.
The notices issued by the CIT(A) had been sent to “[email protected]”. According to the assessee, the “shlokmedia.com” domain had been surrendered in June 2022 following reduction in business activities, after which he no longer had access to that email account. Communications had shifted to “[email protected]”, but the new email address was inadvertently not updated on the income-tax e-filing portal. Consequently, subsequent notices continued to go to the deactivated address and the assessee could not appear before the CIT(A). He claimed to have learnt of the ex-parte order only in June 2025 after appointing new consultants, following which steps were immediately taken to file the Tribunal appeal. The ITAT found nothing on record to doubt the bona fides of this explanation.
Relying on Collector of Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others, AIR 1987 1353 (SC), the Tribunal reiterated that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations and that the requirement to explain delay should be applied rationally, pragmatically and with common sense. It accepted that sufficient cause prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within time, condoned the 51-day delay and set aside the CIT(A)’s ex-parte order. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the grounds afresh after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to furnish supporting details, documents and submissions and to update his address/email details in the Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) Portal and CIT(A)’s records. The Tribunal expressly returned no findings on the merits and left all rights and contentions open.
For AY 2012-13, the appeal concerned an ex-parte CIT(A) order against a penalty order dated 11.01.2022 under Section 271(1)(c). The appeal was delayed by 50 days. Both sides agreed that the Tribunal’s adjudication for AY 2011-12 would apply mutatis mutandis. Accordingly, the delay was condoned, the CIT(A)’s order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication with reasonable opportunity of hearing, without findings on merits. For AY 2016-17, involving an assessment order dated 29.03.2022 under Section 147 read with Section 144B, the appeal was delayed by 20 days. On identical reasoning, that delay was also condoned and the CIT(A)’s ex-parte order dated 30.03.2025 was set aside for fresh adjudication. Ultimately, all three appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
Cases Discussed
- Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Others, AIR 1987 1353 (SC) – relied upon for adopting a rational, pragmatic and justice-oriented approach to condonation of delay and for holding that a meritorious matter should not ordinarily be rejected at the threshold merely on technical considerations.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
1. These are three appeals preferred by the same Assessee which were heard together since the same involved identical issues and are, therefore, being disposed off by way of a common order.
ITA No.4177/Mum/2025 [Assessment Year 2011-2012]
2. First we would take up appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 against the Order, dated 06/02/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’], whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 30/03/2022, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’].
3. The Assessee has raised the 8 grounds of Appeal.
4. When the appeal was taken up for the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee, at the outset, submitted that the delay in filing the present appeal be condoned and the ex-parte order passed by Learned CIT(A) be set aside. In this regard, the Learned Authorised Representative for the Assessee placed reliance upon the sworn affidavit filed by the Assessee explaining the circumstances leading up to filing of the present appeal.
5. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative opposed the application seeking of delay and submitted that the Assessee had failed to furnish any corroborating evidence. Therefore, it was submitted that the Affidavit filed by the Assessee could not be accepted on the face value.
6. We have heard the rival submissions and have used the material on record.
7. We find that for the delay of 51 days in filing the present appeal. The Assessee has filed application seeking condonation of delay along with affidavit explaining the circumstances in which the delay had occurred in filing the present appeal. We have taken into the aforesaid application and Affidavit filed. On perusal of the same it emerges as follows:
(a) The Learned CIT(A) had passed ex-parte Order, dated 06/02/2025, dismissing the appeal in limine on the ground of non-compliance to various notices of hearing
(b) The present appeal was filed on 19/06/2025 after a delay of 51 days.
(c) The notices of hearing issued by the Learned CIT(A) during the appellate proceedings were addressed and communicated to the email address “[email protected]” which was not used by the Assessee at the relevant time for business correspondence. The said domain “shlokmedia.com” was surrendered by the Assessee in June 2022 due to reduction in business activities, and consequently, the Assessee did not have access to the said email account thereafter. All communications were shifted by the Assessee to a new email address/ID (namely “[email protected]”). However, inadvertently, this new email address was not updated on the Income Tax e-filing portal by the accountant/employee of the Assessee. As a result, all subsequent communications, including notices issued the Ld. CIT(A), continued to be sent to the earlier deactivated email address, and were, therefore, not received by the Assessee. Therefore, the Assessee was unable to enter appearance before the Learned CIT(A).
(d) It was only in June 2025, when new consultants were appointed for handling income tax compliances that the Assessee received information that the Learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order dated 06/02/2025. Immediately thereafter, the Assessee took steps file the present appeal before the Tribunal. The appeal got to be filed on 20/06/2025 after a delay of 51 days.
(e) According to the Assessee the delay in filing the present appeal as well as non-compliance before the Learned CIT(A) was due to genuine reasons beyond the control of the Assessee.
8. While the Learned Departmental Representative has submitted that the affidavit filed by the Assessee should not be accepted on face value, there is nothing on record to doubt the bonafide of the stand taken by the Assessee. We find that the appeal before the Learned CIT(A) was filed on 09/05/2022. In the Memorandum of Appeal in Form 35 email address/id for communication is stated as [email protected]. Subsequently, the said appeal was disposed of by way of ex-party order dated 06/02/2025. It is the case of the Assessee that the domain name was surrendered in June 2022 on account of losses suffered during the Covid Pandemic period. Thus, for the aforesaid notices of hearing sent by the Learned CIT(A) on the email address specified in Form 35 were not received by the Assessee and therefore, the Assessee was proceeded ex-party. On account of the same reasons that the Assessee got delayed knowledge of the impugned order having been passed by Learned CIT(A). We have no reasons to doubt the aforesaid explanation offered by the Assessee.
9. In the case of Collector of Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & others AIR 1987 1353 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, while dealing with the issue of condonation of delay, emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Every day’s delay must be explained does not mean that a pedantic approach should be taken and that the aforesaid doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense and pragmatic manner, more so in circumstances where a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging the appeal late (as is the case in appeal before us). Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties.
10. Accepting the explanation given by the Assessee to be reasonable, we hold that in the present case the Assessee was prevented by the sufficient cause from filing the present appeal within the prescribed time. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 51 days in filing the present appeal. Since the Assessee could not make any representation before the Learned CIT(A) on account of non-receipt of notice of hearing issued during the appellate proceedings, the impugned Order, dated 06/02/2025, passed by Learned CIT(A) is set-aside with the directions to adjudicate grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is also directed to file details, documents & submission in support of its claims/contentions before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) would be at liberty to admit/consider the same as per law. The Assessee is directed to take necessary steps for update the address/email address of the Assessee in the records of Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) Portal and in the records of the Learned CIT(A) for proper communications of the orders/notices. In terms of the aforesaid, and without returning any findings on merits, the Grounds No. 4 and 5 raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes while all the other grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having being rendered infructuous in view of the fact that impugned Order has been set aside. All the rights and contentions of the Assessee are left open.
11. In the result, terms of Paragraph 9 above, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA No.4165/Mum/2025 [Assessment Year 2012-2013]
12. Now we would take up appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2012-2013 against the Order, dated 06/02/2025, passed by the Learned CIT(A), whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Penalty Order, dated 11/01/2022, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
13. In facts and circumstances identical to Assessment Year 2011-2012, the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Penalty Order was dismissed by the Learned CIT(A) way of ex-party order against which appeal was preferred by the Assessee after a delay of 50 days. During the course of hearing both the sides had agreed that our finding/adjudication on identical issue in appeal for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 shall apply mutatis mutandis to appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. Therefore, adopting the reasoning given while adjudicating ITA No.4177/Mum/2025 [Assessment Year 2011-12] hereinabove, we condone the delay of 50 days in filing the present appeal. Since the Assessee could not make any representation before the Learned CIT(A) on account of non-receipt of notice of hearing issued during the appellate proceedings, the impugned Order, dated 06/02/2025, passed by Learned CIT(A) is set-aside with the directions to adjudicate grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is also directed to file details, documents & submission in support of its claims/contentions before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) would be at liberty to admit/consider the same as per law. The Assessee is directed to take necessary steps for update the address/email address of the Assessee in the records of Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) Portal and in the records of the Learned CIT(A) for proper communications of the orders/notices. In terms of the aforesaid, and without returning any findings on merits, the Grounds No. 3 raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes while all the other grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having being rendered infructuous in view of the fact that impugned Order has been set aside. All the rights and contentions of the Assessee are left open.
14. In the result, terms of Paragraph 12 above, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
ITA No.4179/Mum/2025 [Assessment Year 2016-2017]
15. Now we would take up appeal preferred by the Assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 against the Order, dated 30/03/2025, passed by the Learned CIT(A), whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 29/03/2022, passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act.
16. For the Assessment Year 2016-2017 also there is no change in facts and circumstances. The appeal preferred by the Assessee against the Assessment Order, dated 29/03/2022, was dismissed by the Learned CIT(A) way of ex-party order against which appeal was preferred by the Assessee after a delay of 20 days. During the course of hearing both the sides had agreed that our finding/adjudication on identical issue in appeal for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 shall apply mutatis mutandis to appeal for the Assessment Year 2016-2017 (ITA No.4179/Mum/2025). Therefore, adopting the reasoning given while adjudicating ITA No.4177/Mum/2025 [Assessment Year 2011-12] hereinabove, we condone the delay of 20 days in filing the present appeal. Since the Assessee could not make any representation before the Learned CIT(A) on account of non-receipt of notice of hearing issued during the appellate proceedings, the impugned Order, dated 30/03/2025, passed by Learned CIT(A) is set-aside with the directions to adjudicate grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal afresh after granting the Assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Assessee is also directed to file details, documents & submission in support of its claims/contentions before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A) would be at liberty to admit/consider the same as per law. The Assessee is directed to take necessary steps for update the address/email address of the Assessee in the records of Income Tax Business Application (ITBA) Portal and in the records of the Learned CIT(A) for proper communications of the orders/notices. In terms of the aforesaid, and without returning any findings on merits, the Grounds No. 3 & 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes while all the other grounds raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having being rendered infructuous in view of the fact that impugned Order has been set aside. All the rights and contentions of the Assessee are left open.
17. In the result, terms of Paragraph 15 above, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
18. In conclusion, all the three appeals preferred by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 31.10.2025.
