IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Bharat Navinchandra Vs. Income Tax officer, Wd –

Gala 41(3)(1), Mumbai

402, God Gift B Wing, Adarsh Layout off Malad West Mumbai - 400064 [PAN: AABPG7900J]

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Shri Nimesh Thar, A/R Revenue by Shri Limbasiya Kavan Nareshkumar, Sr. DR.

Date of Hearing 05.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 ORDER Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM:

The present appeal arises out of the order dated 26/12/2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Coimbatore [hereinafter “the Ld.CIT(A)]

for A.Y. 2012-13 on the following grounds of appeal:-

2. At the outset, it is noted that, there is a delay of 330 days. There is a delay of 330 days in filing the present appeal. The Assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. It is stated that the impugned appellate order dated 26/12/2023 for A.Y. 2012-13 was e-received on 26/12/2023 and the appeal was required to be filed on or before 25/02/2024. However, due to the registration of an FIR bearing No. 0219 dated 09/03/2024 against the Assessee under section 154 of the Cr.PC at Malad West Police Station, the Assessee was not available and was preoccupied with the said proceedings, as a result of which the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time. The appeal was eventually filed before the Tribunal on 24/01/2025, resulting in a delay of 330 days.

2.1. Having regard to the submissions by the assessee, we refer to the decision of Hon’ble Cochin Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Midas Polymer Compounds Pvt. Ltd. dated 25.6.2018, condoned the delay of 2819 days by observing as follows:

“6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. There was a delay of 2819 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has stated the reasons in the condonation petition accompanied by an affidavit which has been cited in the earlier para. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons and prayed for condonation of delay. The reason stated by the assessee is due to inadvertent omission on the part of Shri Unnikrishnan Nair N, CA in taking appropriate action to file the appeal. He had a mistaken belief that the appeal for this year was filed by the assessee as there was separate Counsel to take steps to file this appeal before the ITAT. Therefore, we have to consider whether the Counsel’s failure is sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Madras High Court considered an identical issue in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust v. Dy. CIT (280 ITR 357) and held that mixing up of papers with other papers are sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. The Madras High Court further observed that the expression "sufficient cause" should be interpreted to advance substantial justice. Therefore, advancement of substantial justice is the prime factor while considering the reasons for condoning the delay.

6.1 On merit the issue is in favour of the assessee. But there is a technical defect in the appeal since the appeal was not filed within the period of limitation. The assessee filed an affidavit saying that the appeal was not filed because of the Counsel’s inability to file the appeal. The Revenue has not filed any counter affidavit to deny the allegation made by the assessee. While considering a similar issue the Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji and Ors. (167 ITR 471) laid down six principles. For the purpose of convenience, the principles laid down by the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder:

(1) Ordinarily, a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late (2) Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. 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