The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has condoned delays of 308 days and 120 days in filing appeals against an assessment order and a penalty order, respectively, after considering the taxpayer’s explanation that the orders went unnoticed because he was no longer regularly checking his earlier email account.

The Bench of Pawan Singh (Judicial Member) and Rakesh Kumar Lodha (Accountant Member) has observed that substantial justice deserved preference over technical considerations. It imposed costs of ₹5,000, payable to the Income Tax Department, and restored both matters to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for adjudication on merits. 

Buy Now: Direct tax (Income Tax) E-Magazine September 2026

The proceedings concerned the appellant/assessee and related to assessment year 2016–17. Two appeals were filed before the Tribunal: one concerning the addition made in the assessment and the other challenging a penalty described in the order as having been imposed under Section 270A of the Income-tax Act.

The CIT(A), through separate orders dated May 15, 2026, had refused to condone the delays and dismissed both appeals as unadmitted. Consequently, neither dispute had been examined on its merits at the first appellate stage.

Before the Tribunal, the taxpayer sought condonation of the delays and restoration of both appeals so that he could contest the assessment addition and penalty.

The taxpayer submitted that the assessment had been completed under Section 144 read with Section 147 on March 10, 2025. The appeal against that assessment was subsequently filed before the CIT(A) on February 11, 2026.

Explaining the delay, the representative stated that the taxpayer had changed his email address after assessment year 2020–21 and was not regularly checking the earlier account used for income-tax proceedings. As a result, the assessment order remained unnoticed.

The Tribunal was also told that the taxpayer had been filing his income-tax returns himself and was unfamiliar with the technicalities surrounding electronic service of notices. According to the submissions recorded in the order, he became aware of the assessment and penalty orders after engaging a chartered accountant and thereafter filed the appeals.

The taxpayer had submitted an affidavit before the CIT(A) explaining the reasons for the delay. His representative maintained that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate.

The department opposed the request, describing the explanation as a self-serving account and arguing that the delays should not be condoned.

Alternatively, the departmental representative submitted that if the Tribunal was inclined to grant another opportunity, exemplary costs should be imposed on the taxpayer.

In response, the taxpayer’s representative stated that the taxpayer had already incurred litigation expenses and appeal fees exceeding ₹10,000 in connection with the two appeals. Nevertheless, he submitted that the Bench could impose a minimum cost if it considered that appropriate.

The representative also undertook on the taxpayer’s behalf that he would be more vigilant in future.

After considering the rival submissions, the Tribunal noted that although the taxpayer had made certain compliances during the assessment proceedings, the addition had been made for want of compliance and supporting evidence.

The Bench considered the overall circumstances and accepted that the appeals should be heard on merits, subject to payment of costs.

Recording its central reasoning, the Tribunal observed that “the cause of substantial justice deserves preference over technical considerations.”

It accordingly condoned both delays on the condition that the taxpayer pay ₹5,000 to the Income Tax Department.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s orders and restored both matters for adjudication on merits. It directed the first appellate authority to provide the taxpayer with a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing.

At the same time, the Bench instructed the taxpayer to be more vigilant in ensuring timely compliance in future.

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: BSNL, MTNL VRS Compensation Governed By S. 10(10C), Not Retrenchment Exemption: CBDT