SUFYAN BASHIR AHMAD PATEL,TALOJA vs. ITO WARD 5, PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 709/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 August 2026AY 2013-146 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay was inordinate and there was no sufficient cause demonstrated by the assessee. The reasons provided were vague, and the assessee's past conduct indicated non-compliance.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 657 days. The assessee cited personal medical emergencies, illiteracy, and reliance on a tax consultant as reasons for the delay. The Revenue opposed the condonation, highlighting the assessee's non-compliance and habitual default.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT is condonable on the grounds presented by the assessee, considering their past conduct and the inordinate delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC, PUNE

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Om Kandalkar
For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya P. Medshikar, JCIT

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2013-14 on 07.02.2024, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, dated 31.08.2021.

Submission of Ld. AR :

2.

There was a delay of 657 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR filed affidavit of the assessee requesting to condone the delay. The Ld. AR pleaded that the assessee had reasonable cause for delay. The Ld. AR read out the affidavit.

ITA No. 709/PUN/2026

Submission of Ld. DR :

3.

The Ld. DR opposed the condonation of delay. The Ld. DR submitted that in this case there was cash deposits of Rs.58,60,500/- by the assessee in the bank account. Therefore, notice u/s 148 was issued. The Assessing Officer (AO) had to pass ex-parte assessment order as there was no compliance from the assessee. The Ld. DR further submitted that there was delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) also. However, the Ld. CIT(A) condoned the delay and decided the issue on merits. The Ld. DR further submitted that there was no compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) also. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) had issued four notices and no notice was complied by the assessee. The Ld. DR submitted that thus the assessee has habitual defaulter and therefore delay should not be condoned in this case.

Findings and Analysis :

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Admittedly, there is a delay of 657 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee filed affidavit dated 13.07.2026. The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit are reproduced here as under : “a) Initially, during the period from January 2024 to April 2025, my mother, aged 61 years, was bedridden and had medical complications which arose due to her advanced age. Being the sole caregiver, I was consumed by medical emergencies and financial distress, due to which I could not give my attention to financial and other taxation related matters. b) Further, I reside in Taloja Village - a small semi-urban area and am also a person who is functionally illiterate. I also do not possess a computer, nor do I know how to access the Income Tax E-filing portal. Further my knowledge on Income Tax compliances is also very limited and I am totally dependent on my tax consultant for these matters.

ITA No. 709/PUN/2026

c) The Appeal before the Hon. CIT(A) was filed by my previous tax consultant and I was totally dependent on him for my Income Tax compliances. In my case, the Appellate order was uploaded digitally on 07.02.2024, which remained completely outside my awareness due to not being conversant with the Income Tax Portal and my reliance on the previous consultant who, unfortunately did not inform me about the course of action to be taken on receiving the Appellate Order. Under the circumstances, the Appellate Order went unnoticed. d) I first gained "actual knowledge" of the existence of the Appellate Order against me on 21st December 2025, when the Department served a Physical Recovery Notice by post at my residence on 27.10.2025. Prior to this physical touchpoint, I was under the bona fide impression that my matters are still pending before the Hon. CIT(A) and the same are being attended to by my previous tax consultant. e) On receiving the recovery notice, I promptly approached a Chartered Accountant to seek advice in the matter. On 12th December, 2025, when my newly appointed CA was replying to the Recovery notice on the portal, it was realized that the Hon. CIT(A) has already passed the Appellate Order, dismissing the Appeal, on 07.02.2024.”

5.

Thus, the assessee has merely stated that the assessee’s earlier Tax Consultant had not complied. The assessee submitted that the assessee realized about the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) when Recovery Notice was issued which was received by the assessee on 21.12.2025. Even after that the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal on 16.02.2026. Thus, even after Recovery Notice received there has been delay in filing of the appeal. The assessee pleaded that the assessee’s mother was unwell and enclosed the copy of certificate dated 14.06.2026 issued by Dr. Javed M. Firfiray. It is observed that Dr. has merely written that assessee’s mother having treatment for Diabetes Mellitus, Knee joint pain and Obesity. The DR has mentioned Registration No. 1992/01/67169. The said certificate Number does not appear on the Maharashtra Medical

ITA No. 709/PUN/2026

Council List. This creates doubt about the genuineness of the certificate. Thus, in totality of the facts, there has not been sufficient cause for inordinate delay. Earlier also the assessee had been non-compliant before the Ld. CIT(A) and AO.

6.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others Civil Appeal Nos.8183-8184 of 2013 vide order dated 13/09/2013 has laid down following principles for deciding Condonation Application: Quote, "15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.

ITA No. 709/PUN/2026

vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. "Unquote. (emphasis supplied).

6.1 Thus, Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained that the Inordinate Delay warrants Strict Approach, and earlier conduct of the petitioner should be analyzed.

6.2 In this case when we apply the above mentioned Principles, the Delay in this case is Inordinate hence warrants Stricter approach. The Assessee was non-compliant even before the Commissioner of Income Tax. The reasons mentioned in the

ITA No. 709/PUN/2026

condonation petition are vague. Assessee has failed to demonstrate that there was any sufficient cause for delay.

6.3 For all the reasons discussed above, the Delay is not condoned, and appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

7.

Taking into consideration totality of the facts, we are of the considered opinion that there was no sufficient cause for such inordinate delay. Hence, appeal is dismissed.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 20th August, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 20-08-2026 Ravi Kumar Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.08.21 17:52:26 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →