IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.6310 & 6312/M/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Canara Bank (e-Syndicate ITO, TDS Ward 2 (2) (1), Bank), Plot No. 342 Syndicate Plot No. 342 Syndicate House, Vs. House, 16^th Road, Bandra 16^th Road, Bandra West, West, Mumbai – 400 050.

Mumbai – 400 050.

TAN : MUMB 1175 F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Present for:

Assessee by : Shri S. Ananthan & Mrs. Lalitha Rameswaran, Ld. ARs.

Revenue by : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Ld. Sr. D.R.

Date of Hearing : 03.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03.12.2025

O R D E R

Per : Per Bench This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the orders even dated 15.04.2025, 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. Both the cases under consideration, are having involved identical facts and issues, therefore, the same were heard together and disposed of by this composite order by taking into consideration ITA No.6310/M/2025 for the AY 2014-15, as a lead case.

3. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 96 days in filing the instant appeal, on which the assessee has claimed as under: -

“The appellant petitioner wishes to submit the following in support of its application for condonation of delay:

An order u/s 201(1)/201(1A) r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was passed on 30-03-2021. Further, an order u/s 250 was passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 15-04-2025, dismissing the appeal of the appellant bank.

The CIT(A) issued multiple notices on 20/02/2025, 06/03/2025 & 08/04/2025 to fix the appeal hearings. Because of the non-availability of the files and other documents, the notices remained un-responded to. Further, the branch was not equipped with personnel knowing the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and as such they were not aware of the procedure. Also, when the CIT(A) order was passed on 15-04-2025, it was the time of statutory audit for the bank and also, the branch staff were subject to transfers at that point of time. In the process, the order was misplaced and no further action was taken by the branch and the branch head was not aware of the order. In the first week of August, the Department telephoned the Mumbai Circle Office of the appellant bank and informed them to pay the pending demand. The Circle Office, unaware of the details, requested the Department to give the copy of the order. The Department, vide their mail dated, 18- 08-2025, provided the copies of the orders to the Circle Office. It was then forwarded to the Head Office for further action. The Head Office then took up the matter with the tax consultants of the bank. The tax consultants required various details for preparing the appeal papers. The Head Office had to get all the details from the branch through the circle office. Since, both the branch and the circle office do not have the staff with requisite tax knowledge and the requirements in connection with the filing of the appeal, there was a delay in getting the full details. In this process, the appeal could not be filed within the due date.

The appeal should have been filed on or before 30-06-2025. There has been a delay of about 96 days. The delay in filing the appeal is on account of bonafide reasons and based on reasonable cause. The bank has a good case on merits, as this issue has been decided in favour of the appellant bank by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the bank's own case.

It is therefore submitted that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be adjudicated on merits in the interest of justice.

4. The Ld. D.R. though refuted the prayer of the Assessee but not the factual aspects, demonstrated above.

5. Considering the reasons stated by the assessee for condonation of delay, which ar