What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The claim of late receipt of the order was found to be factually incorrect.

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order with a delay of 1459 days. The Revenue claimed the order was received late, but evidence showed the Revenue was aware of the order much earlier.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue is condonable due to sufficient cause, considering the Revenue's prior knowledge of the order.

DCIT vs Chhattisgarh State Civil Supplies… | ITAT Raipur 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “DB”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Yash Jain, CA

For Respondent: Shri CH. Rajeswara Reddy, Sr. DR

Hearing: 13.05.2026Pronounced: 31.07.2026

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

ITA No. 373/RPR/2025 for AY 2016-17 is the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], (NFAC) for AY 2019-20 passed on 23.12.2021 having DIN No & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1038080080(1) emanating from assessment order under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (‘the Act’) dated 23.10.2020.

The Revenue has filed appeal on 29.05.2025 with a delay of 1459 days vide authorization issued by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Raipur (PCIT) on 28.05.2025. This appeal was electronically filed by the Revenue.

Submission of Ld. AR:

Ld. AR has filed a return submission which is reproduced as under:

“ ” Submission of Ld. DR:

Ld. DR submitted that there is no delay in filing the appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 23.12.2021 as the impugned order was received by the PCIT on 17.03.2025. The Revenue has filed a signed letter by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), wherein Revenue has claimed that order dated 23.12.2021 was served on PCIT, Raipur on 17.03.2025, for which, Revenue relied on screenshot.

Finding and Analysis :

We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on record. In this case, admittedly the order of Ld. CIT(A) for AY 2019-20 under section 250 was passed on 23.12.2021 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). As per the procedure of NFAC all orders are dispatched electronically.

In this case, the assessee had filed an appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 23.12.2021 for AY 2019-20 with ITA No.89/RPR/2022. The said appeal of the assessee was heard by the ITAT, Raipur on 28.11.2023. The revenue was represented by Mr. Satya Prakash Sharma, IRS, Sr. DR. Thus, the Revenue has participated in the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2019-20 against the order of Ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act dated 23.12.2021. This shows that the Revenue was aware about the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC on 23.12.2021 for AY 2019-20. The ITAT had decided the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 89/RPR/2022 on 30.11.2023. The Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) has given effect to the order of the ITAT on 08.04.2024. Thus, again Revenue was aware about the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/(NFAC) as the Ld. AO has given effect to the order of the ITAT on 08.04.2024.

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. 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.

Thus, Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down above mentioned guidelines to decide the condonation application. In this case there is a delay of 1459 days which is inordinate delay. The reason given by the PCIT, Raipur is that the PCIT had received the order on 17.03.2025, however, that reason itself is factually incorrect which we have discussed in earlier paragraphs. Earlier, the assessee had filed appeal against the same CIT(A)’s order and Department had participated in the said appeal. Similarly, the ITAT in ITA No.89/RPR/2022 for AY 2019-20 which was assessee’s appeal against the same order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 23.12.20221 was decided by ITAT on 30.11.2023. As per the procedure ITAT sends orders to PCIT by speed post. We have verified our speed post tracker, which is available online and noted that it was delivered on 20.12.2023 at 17:49 hours in consignment no. RC374032763IN. Thus, ITAT’s order was in the possession of the PCIT on December, 2023. Therefore, PCIT stating that the they have received order of CIT(A) on 17.03.2025 seems to be factually incorrect based on the above facts. The PCIT has failed to provide any sufficient cause. If we condoned such inordinate delay the other party will suffer unnecessarily.

Further, it is observed that all these facts categorically demonstrate that the Revenue was aware about the order dated 23.12.2021 passed under section 250 of the Act for AY 2019-20 by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The Revenue has relied on some screenshot to claim that order was received on 17.03.2025. However, the said screenshot is not so clear. The said screenshot pertains to appeal receipt register, however, it is not an evidence showing dispatch of appeal order by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has electronically dispatched the order as it is a procedure laid down for NFAC. Therefore, the Revenue’s contention that the Revenue was not aware of the order is unacceptable. We have already reproduced circumstances and evidences demonstrating that the Revenue was aware of the order passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the Revenue has failed to justify inordinate delay in filing the appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dated 23.12.2021. In these facts and circumstances of the case, since, there was no sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 1459 days, we do not condone the delay. Accordingly, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

10.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.

Order pronounced on this 31st day of July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; िदनांक / Dated : 31st July, 2026. HKS, PS

आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब�च, 4. रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Hem Kumari Digitally signed by Hem Kumari //True copy// Shrivastava, Shrivastava, PS, ITAT, PS, ITAT, Raipur Date: 2026.07.31 Raipur 17:17:55 +05'30' // True Copy // Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. CHHATTISGARH STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, RAIPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments