Delay in Filing CIT(A) Appeal Bona Fide Due to Pending Revision Order; Remanded for Fresh Hearing on Merits

By | September 18, 2026
0 Comment
Delay in Filing CIT(A) Appeal Bona Fide Due to Pending Revision Order; Remanded for Fresh Hearing on Merits
Issue
Whether a delay of 608 days in filing a first appeal under Section 250 before the CIT(A) ought to be condoned, and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication on merits, where the assessee was bona fide pursuing a revision remedy under Section 264 and was unaware of its rejection due to an incorrect email address.
Facts
  • Assessee’s assessment for AY 2016-17 was completed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, making an addition of Rs. 70 lakhs as unexplained investment under Section 69.
  • Instead of filing an appeal initially, the assessee pursued a revision application under Section 264 against the assessment order.
  • The revision order was passed, but the assessee remained unaware of its disposal because it was sent to an incorrect email address.
  • Upon discovering the disposal of the Section 264 petition, the assessee immediately filed a statutory first appeal under Section 250 before the Commissioner (Appeals).
  • The appeal was filed with a delay of 608 days, and the assessee submitted a sworn affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay.
  • The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal in limine solely on the ground of limitation without adjudicating the tax dispute on merits.
Decision
  • The Tribunal held that pursuing a statutory remedy under Section 264 constitutes a plausible, bona fide, and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal under Section 250.
  • The explanation provided by the assessee, supported by a sworn affidavit regarding the non-receipt of the revision order due to an incorrect email ID, was accepted as genuine.
  • The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the appeal on technical grounds of limitation was set aside.
  • The matter was remanded back to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits after condoning the delay.
Key Takeaways
  • Pursuit of Alternate Remedy as Sufficient Cause: Time spent in good faith pursuing an alternative statutory remedy (such as revision under Section 264) qualifies as a valid and sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing an appeal.
  • Procedural Lapses & Service Issues: Non-receipt or delayed communication of orders due to wrong email addresses or technical delivery issues warrants a liberal and justice-oriented approach toward condonation of delay.
  • Substance Over Technicalities: Appellate authorities should avoid dismissing appeals in limine on technical limitation grounds when a bona fide explanation exists, ensuring tax disputes are adjudicated on their actual legal and factual merits.
IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH ‘G’
Suryakant Shantaram Bane
v.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, Judicial Member
and Prabhash Shankar, Accountant Member
IT Appeal No. 5376 (MUM) of 2026
[Assessment year 2016-17]
AUGUST  21, 2026
Dhaval Shah and Tisha Bagh, Ld. A.R. for the Appellant. Basavraj Hiremath, Ld. CIT D.R. for the Respondent.
ORDER
Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member.- 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 “upsalkar@yahoo.co.in” instead of the Assessee’s email address, i.e., “sandipbane2@gmail.com”, 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.