KISHOR CHANGYA PATIL,MUMBAI V. ITO41(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7938/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the assessee, Kishor Changya Patil, against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which were dismissed on technical grounds due to delay in filing. The appeals were related to reassessment proceedings under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeals was not intentional and warranted a liberal approach to ensure substantive justice. The Tribunal emphasized that technicalities should not defeat substantive rights and thus decided to condone the delay and restore the matters for a fresh adjudication on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841451 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471), N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (AIR 1998 SC 3222), Vedabai vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil (253 ITR 798)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATIK SHINDE
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. Nos. 7937 & 7938/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kishor Changya Patil Room No. 942, Mahatma Phule Wadi Korba Mithagar Wadala(E) Mumbai - 400037 [PAN: AWUPP3007G] Vs. ITO – 41(1)(2) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Pratik Shinde, AR Revenue by Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 ORDER PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M.): 1. These two appeals by the assessee arise out of the same reassessment proceedings framed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2019-20. The first appeal is directed against the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, in the quantum proceedings, and the second appeal challenges the order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the learned CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied under section 271AAC(1) of the Act. 2. Since both appeals emanate from identical facts and interconnected issues arising from the same assessment, they Printed from counselvise.com 2 I.T.A. Nos. 7937 & 7938/Mum/2025 were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and judicial propriety. 3. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. Though multiple grounds have been raised in the memoranda of appeal, the core grievance of the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine on account of delay in filing, without adjudicating the issues on merits. The impugned orders thus rest solely on technical grounds of limitation and do not contain any discussion on the substantive additions or penalty confirmation. 4. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the delay in filing the appeals before the learned CIT(A) occurred due to bona fide and reasonable circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. It was contended that the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to any mala fide intention, and that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause. He therefore pleaded that the delay be condoned and the matter be restored for adjudication on merits so that substantial justice may not be sacrificed at the altar of technicalities. 5. The learned Senior Departmental Representative, on the other hand, supported the impugned orders and relied upon the reasoning given therein. 6. We have examined the impugned orders and find that the learned CIT(A) has declined to admit the appeals solely on the ground of delay and has dismissed them without entering into the merits of the additions or penalty. It is a settled canon of law that Printed from counselvise.com 3 I.T.A. Nos. 7937 & 7938/Mum/2025 while considering an application for condonation of delay, a liberal and justice-oriented approach ought to be adopted so that substantive rights are not defeated on technical grounds. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (167 ITR 471) has emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations and that ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal belatedly. Likewise, in N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy (AIR 1998 SC 3222), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that length of delay is not decisive; rather, the acceptability of the explanation is the guiding criterion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vedabai vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil (253 ITR 798) reiterated that a pragmatic and justice- oriented approach must guide the courts in matters of delay condonation. 7. In the present case, having considered the explanation offered and the overall circumstances emerging from the record, we are satisfied that the delay does not appear to be intentional or contumacious. There is nothing to indicate that the assessee derived any undue advantage by filing the appeal belatedly. On the contrary, dismissal of the appeal at the threshold has resulted in denial of adjudication on merits. In our considered view, when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. 8. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we condone the delay in filing the appeals before the learned CIT(A). The impugned orders are set aside, and the matters are restored Printed from counselvise.com 4 I.T.A. Nos. 7937 & 7938/Mum/2025 to the file of the learned CIT(A) with a direction to admit the appeals and adjudicate them afresh on merits in accordance with law, after affording adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee shall extend full cooperation in the appellate proceedings and shall promptly furnish all requisite details as may be called for, without seeking unnecessary adjournments. 9. In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/02/2026 Sd/- Sd/- (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (AMIT SHUKLA) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai Dated: 26/02/2026 SC Sr. P.S. SC Sr. P.S. SC Sr. P.S. SC Sr. P.S. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "