ITAT Mumbai Condones 608-Day Delay in Filing Appeal — Bona Fide Revision Petition Under Section 264 Treated as Sufficient Cause

Case Overview

Case Name: Suryakant Shantaram Bane Vs DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number: ITA No.5376/MUM/2026
Date of Order: 21/08/2026
Assessment Year: 2016-17
Forum: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai

Background and Assessment History

The present matter arose from an assessment completed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, through an order dated 07.03.2024. In that order, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- treating the same as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Act.

Rather than filing a statutory first appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the said assessment order, the assessee chose to challenge the assessment through a revision petition under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was filed on 29.08.2024. This choice of remedy, and the sequence of events that followed, became the central issue before the Tribunal when the first appeal was eventually filed — with a delay of 608 days.

The Delay and the Explanation Furnished

When the first appeal was filed before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in Form No. 35, the assessee set out the following explanation in Column No. 15:

"We request your Honor to consider our delay for filing the appeal with you for our client Suryakant Shantaram Bane for AY 2016-17, we have opted for Application for Revision u/s. 264 of the Income Tax Act 1961 as the same was not in their jurisdiction. Revision was set aside with suggestion to file an appeal with Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal. We shall greatly appreciate your co-operation to admit this appeal."

In addition to the above, a duly sworn affidavit was placed on record before the Tribunal elaborating the full chain of events that led to the delay.

Key Facts That Led to the Delay

The ITAT examined the following sequence of facts in detail:

  1. Revision Petition Filed Instead of Appeal: After the assessment order dated 07.03.2024 was passed, the assessee opted to pursue the revision remedy under Section 264 instead of filing a conventional first appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

  2. Incorrect Email Address on Record: A critical procedural complication was that the email address recorded in the proceedings was not that of the assessee. The email on record was a different address — not the assessee's own email address — which meant that all communications regarding the progress and disposal of the revision petition were directed to an incorrect inbox.

  3. Unawareness of Disposal of Revision Petition: As a direct consequence of the wrong email being recorded, the assessee remained completely unaware that the revision petition had been disposed of by order dated 16.10.2025.