The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has refused to condone a delay of 689 days in filing an appeal against a revisionary order passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 

The Tribunal held that a general plea of ignorance regarding tax laws, electronic notices and the availability of an appellate remedy cannot constitute “sufficient cause” when the entire period of delay remains unexplained.

The Bench comprising Amit Shukla (Judicial Member) and Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member) observed that entertaining the belated appeal would also disturb the subsequent assessment proceedings already restored by a coordinate Bench of the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

Buy Now: Income tax E-Compilation – August 2026

The appeal was filed by the assessee against an order dated March 30, 2024, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-20, Mumbai, under Section 263 for Assessment Year 2018-19.

The original assessment was completed under Section 143(3), read with Section 144B, on April 18, 2021. The Assessing Officer determined the assessee’s total income at ₹11.36 lakh, including an addition of ₹4.21 lakh under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act.

The Principal Commissioner subsequently invoked the revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263 and set aside the assessment order. The PCIT found that the Assessing Officer had failed to conduct the necessary inquiry into the complete source of funds used for purchasing an immovable property valued at ₹37 lakh.

Section 263 empowers a Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to revise an assessment order where the order is considered erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

Following the revisionary order, the Assessing Officer completed a consequential assessment and determined the assessee’s total income at ₹50.60 lakh. The assessment involved an examination of the sources of investment made by the assessee and the assessee’s spouse, including an amount of ₹24 lakh.

The addition was challenged before the first appellate authority, which upheld it. The assessee thereafter approached the ITAT in an earlier appeal. On May 13, 2026, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

Consequently, the assessment proceedings arising from the Section 263 order had already passed through the appellate hierarchy and were pending before the Assessing Officer pursuant to the Tribunal’s directions.

Seeking condonation of the 689-day delay, the assessee contended that the failure to file the appeal within the prescribed period was not deliberate.

Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was a person of limited financial means and was wholly unfamiliar with tax laws and procedures. It was claimed that the assessee did not know that the Section 263 order was required to be challenged independently.

The assessee also claimed to be unfamiliar with notices and communications sent through email or uploaded on the Income Tax Portal. According to the explanation, the assessee was unaware of the appellate remedy available against the revisionary order.

The Tribunal found the explanation insufficient to justify such a prolonged delay. It acknowledged that courts and tribunals may ordinarily adopt a liberal approach where a litigant demonstrates that the delay resulted from circumstances genuinely beyond their control.

However, the Bench stressed that the expression “sufficient cause” cannot be interpreted so liberally that the statutory limitation period becomes meaningless.

The ITAT observed that a mere assertion of ignorance of law, procedure or the availability of an appellate remedy, without cogent supporting material explaining the entire period of delay, could not justify the condonation of an extraordinarily long delay.

The Tribunal further noted that the assessee had participated in the consequential assessment proceedings, pursued a statutory appeal against the consequential assessment and subsequently approached the ITAT. The earlier Tribunal proceedings had resulted in the matter being restored to the Assessing Officer.

These proceedings had originated directly from the Section 263 revisionary order. Therefore, despite pursuing remedies with legal assistance in the consequential proceedings, the assessee had not satisfactorily explained why the foundational revision order remained unchallenged for 689 days.

The Bench characterised the explanation as general and lacking the diligence and particularity required in a case involving such an inordinate delay.

The Tribunal also considered the procedural consequences of entertaining the delayed appeal.

It noted that the consequential assessment had already undergone appellate scrutiny and culminated in the May 13, 2026 order directing a fresh assessment. That order had initiated a second round of assessment proceedings within the parameters prescribed by the Tribunal.

If the appeal against the foundational Section 263 order were entertained at this stage, any finding that the revisionary order was invalid could unsettle the basis of the subsequent proceedings. It could also render the earlier appellate order and the proceedings conducted pursuant to it ineffective or internally inconsistent.

“Judicial propriety and orderly administration of appellate proceedings” required that an operative Tribunal order, pursuant to which proceedings were already pending, should not be indirectly disturbed through a grossly delayed appeal against the preceding order, the Bench observed.

The Tribunal clarified that this procedural consideration did not replace the statutory test for condoning a delay. It nevertheless reinforced why discretionary relief could not be granted in the peculiar facts of the case.

The Bench held that the belated appeal could not be used as a collateral route to reopen or unsettle the course of proceedings already determined by a coordinate Bench.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: S. 263 Revision Can’t Sustain Penalty After Underlying S. 69 Addition Is Deleted: ITAT