SHIVLALBHAI JIVRAJBHAI BHANDERI,RAJKOT vs. THE ITO WARD - 3(1) (2), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Rajkot Bench, Rajkot Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 63 & 64/Rjt/2026 [ �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18 ] Shivlalbhai Jivrajbhai Bhanderi, ITO Ward -3(1)(2), C/O D.R. Adhia "Om Shri Padamlaya", Vs. Rajkot, Gujarat 360001 NR. Trikamrayji Haweli, 16- Jagnath plot, Dr. Yagnik Road, Opp. Imperial Hotel, Rajkot, Gujarat-360001 �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACVPB9634N (अपीलाथ�/Assessee) (��यथ�/Respondent)

Assessee by : None Respondent by : Shri Shishir Kumar, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30/07/2026 30/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement : ORDER Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: Captioned two appeals filed by the Assessee, pertaining to assessment year (AY) 2017-18, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAC) Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘NFAC/Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 17.11.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated 06.12.2019. 2. Notice of hearing of this appeal was sent to the assessee at the address given by the assessee in Form No.36. The said notice has not been returned unserved. Today when the case was called for hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment was made. Four adjournments were granted to the assessee, however, non-appeared, on behalf of the assessee, to take the adjournments. It means that assessee is not interested in prosecuting these two appeals. 3. I have heard, Ld. DR for the revenue. The Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that appeal of the assessee in ITA No.63/RJT/2026 was barred by limitation before Ld. CIT(A) by 1423 days and appeal of the assessee in ITA No.64/RJT/2026 was barred by limitation before Ld. CIT(A) by 809 days. In case of both these appeals, the assessee did not submit affidavit before Ld. CIT( A), citing the reasons for delay, therefore Ld. CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismiss these two appeals of the assessee on account of delay. Learned DR for the revenue also submitted that assessee also did not appear before the Tribunal, despite of issuance of several notices, therefore, the assessee’s these two appeals, should be dismissed on account of delay before Ld. CIT(A).The Ld. DR pointed out that in these two appeals no "sufficient cause" was shown by the assessee to explain the huge/unreasonable delay in filing of appeals before Ld. CIT(A). Rather, this is a clear case of deliberate inaction or negligence on the part of the assessee. Period of delay is a factor to be considered while considering a delay condonation application, since the law assists those that are vigilant with their rights, and not those that sleep thereupon. The law of limitation in India identifies the need for limiting litigation by striking a balance between the interests of the State and the litigant. The general rule of the law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay, the onus of proving which lies on the assessee as clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the highest Court of Law. In this regard, reliance is also placed on following judgments: (i) In the case of Balwant Singh (Dead) v. JagdishSinh, (2010) 8 SSC, 685, where in the court held that:

"25. We may state that even if the term sufficient cause" has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of "reasonableness" as it is understood in its general connotation. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a patty to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favor of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly." (ii) In the case of University of Delhi Vs Union of India & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 9488 of 2019 vide Order dated 17/12/2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has refused to condone delay by holding that, "The entire explanation as noted above depicts the casual approach unmindful of the law of limitation despite being aware of the position of law. That apart when there is such a long delay and there is no proper explanation, laches would also come into play while noticing as to the manner in which a party has proceeded before filing an appeal.

Order is pronounced in the open Court Today on 30/07/2026.

Sd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member //True Copy// राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 30/07/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The assessee 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. The CIT(A) By order 5. DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot