What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the delay was inordinate, caused by negligence, and lacked sufficient bonafide reasons. Condonation of such delay is not a matter of right and cannot be granted merely as an act of generosity.

The assessee's appeals were filed with a delay of 738 days. The assessee cited illness and inability to communicate with the tax consultant as reasons for the delay. However, the tribunal found the explanation insufficient and noted the assessee's non-compliance before lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeals is liable to be condoned on the grounds of illness and inability to communicate with the tax consultant, given the inordinate delay and lack of sufficient evidence.

Sambhu Lal Gupta, Balrampur vs ITO | ITAT Raipur 2026

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

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: shri Prashant Gupta &

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

Hearing: 19.05.2026Pronounced: 22.05.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the respective orders of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 16.04.2024 for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

At the very outset, both these appeals are time barred by 738 days i.e. almost 2 years 8 days. The assessee had filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit. The Ld. Counsel at the time of hearing while reading affidavit submitted that the said delay had occurred since the assessee was suffering from certain diseases and in support of his contention, certain medical prescription were also attached with the affidavit. Further, it was contended by the Ld. Counsel that due to suffering from various diseases, the assessee was not able to communicate with his tax consultant, for which, the said delay had occurred. That on query from the Bench, it was answered by the Ld. Counsel that the assessee was in fact suffering from said diseases as per prescriptions for about 1 year. Thereafter, also there is more than 1 year delay in filing these appeals for which the assessee also did not have any explanations and valid reason. There are two conditions viz. firstly, the assessee is saying that he was suffering from certain diseases for one year for which he was not able to

3 Sambhu Lal Gupta Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ITA Nos.305 & 306/RPR/2026

communicate with his tax consultant. That when the tax consultant is entrusted with professional job for filing of the appeal then the assessee being physically not well does not prevent the tax consultant to file appeal on time and the assessee filed the appeal waiting for 2 years without any valid reason. Secondly, the Ld. Counsel could not place on record any bonafide reasons for filing the appeal belatedly being delayed for almost 2 years. It is also seen from record that the assessee was even non- compliant before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for which, an ex-parte order was passed by the said authority.

Be that as it may, this is a case where the assessee is found to be negligent while pursuing the process of law. The assessee cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong and when he has entrusted the work to a tax consultant, the assessee being not well is not a correct reason for the said delay of 738 days.

That on this issue of condonation of delay, ITAT, SMC, Raipur in 4. the cases of Saumya Services, Durg Vs. ITO-1(1), ITA Nos. 271 & 272/RPR/2026, dated 05.05.2026 has held and observed as follows: “3. There is no iota of evidence to demonstrate that the assessee was vigilant and not negligent. The very fact that the assessee waits to file appeal before the Tribunal for 915 days itself shows carelessness and casual approach of the assessee while pursuing the process of law. The explanation advanced by the Ld. Counsel on behalf of the assessee is very impractical and unfeasible. Relief got by one partner cannot help the other partner in not filing appeal in time. The law of

4 Sambhu Lal Gupta Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ITA Nos.305 & 306/RPR/2026

limitation is therefore to deal with these careless assessee and it is well established that the process of law has to be complied within certain period of time and that it cannot be allowed to prolong forever and ever. Therefore, before every authority filing of appeal and process therein has to be done within a specified period enshrined in the statutes. 4. In this case, the very conduct of the assessee reveals negligence on its part. That any prudent assessee being aggrieved by the appellate order would suo-motto within the reasonable time as granted by law of limitation would first file appeal. In this case, it is clearly evident that the assessee was sleeping on its rights in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and was highly negligent which resulted in such inordinate delay of 915 days. It is dictated by the Hon’ble Apex Court that delay cannot be condoned just on the basis of an Act of generosity and that the pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H. 5. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnaish since deceased by Lrs, CIVIL APPEAL No. 317 of 2025 (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.9719/2020), dated 08.01.2025 has held that while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It had further observed that once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of 6. Thirunagalingam Vs. Lingeswaran & Anr., Civil Appeal No.(S)…….of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17575 of 2023] had held while setting aside the impugned order of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras which allowed the civil revision preferred by the assessee that the delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity. The Hon’ble Apex Court had emphasized that reasons explained by the assessee should be bonafide and that there shall be no negligence on the part of the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that delay should not be condoned merely

5 Sambhu Lal Gupta Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ITA Nos.305 & 306/RPR/2026

as an Act of generosity and that the pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party. 7. In recent times it had been clearly laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that if delay is caused by negligence or inactive approach, it cannot be condoned. Similarly, condonation of delay is not a matter of right but a matter of discretion of the Court. In the case of State of Orissa Vs. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 161, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that liberal approach does not mean forgiving negligent delay. In the case of Thirunagalingam Vs. Lingeswaran & Anr., Civil Appeal No.(S)…….of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17575 of 2023], the Hon’ble Supreme Court highlighted that procedural timelines are mandatory for legal certainty. 8. The fact of the matter is that the assessee cannot take advantage of its own wrong. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest any sufficient reasons for condonation of such huge inordinate delay before the Tribunal. The judicial principles enshrined in afore-stated decisions dictates that such inordinate delay combined with negligence and lack of sufficient reasons for such huge inordinate delay results in dismissal of appeal on limitation itself. That even within the expression of ‘justice oriented approach’, it would be unfair towards Revenue to condone such delay and provide relief to the assessee on the ground of limitation where the assessee itself is negligent and had adopted a casual approach. 9. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR (1962) 361 (SC) had held that seeker of justice must come with clean hands. In the present case, the reasons advanced by the assessee do not show any good and sufficient reasons for condonation of such a huge delay. I accordingly decline to condone the delay of 915 days involved in both these appeals and without going into the merits of the cases, dismiss the appeals of the assessee as barred by limitation. 10. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.”

The fact of the matter is that the assessee has not brought on record any evidence to even suggest that he is a bonafide assessee and

6 Sambhu Lal Gupta Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ITA Nos.305 & 306/RPR/2026

that he was not negligent. The legal process cannot be misused for the advantage of a particular person in his own way without following the dictate of law. The judicial principles enshrined in afore-stated decisions dictates that such inordinate delay combined with negligence and lack of sufficient reasons for such huge inordinate delay results in dismissal of appeal on limitation itself. That even ‘justice oriented approach’ do not permit to cause prejudice to the Revenue by condoning this inordinate delay when the assessee is negligent and has adopted casual approach towards process of law. In view thereof, I decline to condone the delay of 738 days involved in filing both these appeals and even without going into the merits of the cases, dismiss these appeals as barred by limitation.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 22nd day of May, 2026.

Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 22nd May, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur.

7 Sambhu Lal Gupta Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ITA Nos.305 & 306/RPR/2026

गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.

Samiran Bera, आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Sr. PS, ITAT, // True Copy // Raipur Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur Digitally signed by Samiran Bera, Sr. PS, ITAT, Raipur Date: 2026.05.22 10:43:28 +05'30'

SAMBHU LAL GUPTA,BALRAMPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 AMBIKAPUR, AMBIKAPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments