ANNAMALAI RAJI,NELLORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NELLORE

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1342/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year:2015-16) Annamalai Raji, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nellore. Ward-1, PAN: AYKPR3460M Nellore. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri J Saravanan, Advocate राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing: 12/05/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of 15/05/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / ORDER PER. RAVISH SOOD, J.M: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 11/08/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 11/03/2022 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:

2 ITA No.1342/Hyd/2025 Annamalai Raji vs. ITO “A. For that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) under section 250 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Act) dated 11.08.2025 is erroneous, bad in law, and was passed ignoring the facts and merits of the case. B. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering that the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 23.03.2021 was issued without proper sanction and liable to be quashed, with the proceedings consequent to such notice also deserving to be quashed. C. For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 23.03.2021 was issued for the AY 2015-16, with the sanction of the Nellore Range, even though four years had elapsed from the end of the AY and sanction of the jurisdictional PCIT / CIT ought to have been obtained. D. Without prejudice to the above two immediately preceding grounds of appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 1050 days, even though sufficient reasons existed for the delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). E. For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant does not stand to gain by delaying the filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). F. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noted that when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. G. For these and other additional grounds that may be adduced before or at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the appeal be allowed.”

3 ITA No.1342/Hyd/2025 Annamalai Raji vs. ITO compliance to the aforesaid notice and did not file his return of income in response thereto. The AO during the course of the assessment proceedings, issued notices under section 142(1) of the Act, dated 16/10/2021, 25/11/2021, 14/12/2021 and 21/01/2022, but the assessee failed to comply with the same. The AO considering the aforesaid facts proceeded with to frame the assessment to the best of his judgment and vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 11/03/2022 held the entire amount of cash deposits of Rs.1,35,66,000/- in the assessee’s bank account as having been sourced out of his unexplained money under section 69A of the Act.

4 ITA No.1342/Hyd/2025 Annamalai Raji vs. ITO the Act was received from the Department in the last week of January, 2025, wherein he was informed that a lien was marked on his bank account for the pending arrears for the subject year that he had obtained the assessment order and taken necessary steps to file an appeal before the first appellate authority. It was, thus, the claim of the assessee that as the delay in filing of the appeal was not deliberate but due to circumstances beyond his control, therefore, the same in all fairness and in the interest of justice be condoned. However, we find that the CIT(A) did not find favour with the explanation of the assessee and after drawing support from a host of judicial pronouncements refrained from exercising his discretion vested with him and condone the inordinate delay of 1050 days involved in the appeal before him. For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull out the observations of the CIT(A), as under: “4. DECISION: I have gone through the facts of the case. As per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act, there should be sufficient cause for the appellant for not presenting the appeal within the time allowed. The relevant provision is as under:- "The Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period." Under section 249(3) of the Act, the appellate authority may, on good and sufficient reason for the delay being shown, admit an appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation. 4.1. In the instant case, for condonation of delay, the assessee submitted its reply reproduced above in Para. 3.1 in support of its claim for condonation. The reason given by the assessee has been examined, but is found to be unacceptable. The assessee contended that the appellant and his father both were ignorant about income tax proceedings. All notices u/s.142(1) were issued to the old e-mail id of

5 ITA No.1342/Hyd/2025 Annamalai Raji vs. ITO the appellant. The jurisdictional assessing officer had issued notice u/s.226(3) and marked the bank account of the appellant as lien. After the receipt of notice from department, the appellant had known about the assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings. The appellant retrieved his old email id and found that impugned order had been passed on 11.03.2022 and took steps to file appeal against the impugned assessment order. The delay has occured due to the ignorance of the appellant and his father. Therefore the appellant failed to file the reply within due date. The reply has been perused and found to be very casual and unacceptable. The claim that the appeal could not be filed due to ignorance about income tax proceedings shows how casually the assessee is treating the process of filing of appeal. Further, the assessment order clearly mentions that the SCN dated 09/02/2022 was served on the assessee by Speed Post. Therefore, the claim that he was totally ignorant of the proceedings is false and misplaced. On the contrary, the assessee has willfully chosen to ignore the proceedings, till the time his bank account was attached for recovery of demand. Just casual approach deserves no leniency. A smaller delay can be considered, but such along delay of 1050 days clearly indicates negligence and willful disregard of statutory obligations. Further, the assesee has failed to submit any documentary evidence in support of his claim. The assessee's explanation attributing the delay in filing the appeal does not constitute reasonable cause for condoning such delay and such frivolous reasons cannot be accepted. In view of the above, it is held that the assessee did not have a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. Therefore, the delay of 1050 days in filing the appeal cannot be said to be backed by a reasonable cause, and accordingly, the request for condonation of delay is not tenable. In view of the above, the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. 4.2. It is clear that the assessee has no reasonable cause for such a delay of 1050 days in filing the appeal. 4.3. Hence, in the absence of convincing evidence, the request for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected. Therefore, it is held that the assesseedid not have a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. 4.4. In condoning the delay the appellate authority must be satisfied that there has been due diligence on the part of the appellant and it was not guilty of negligence. The sufficient cause within the contemplation of these provisions must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. Further, the language used in section 249(3) is "sufficient cause" and not "reasonable cause", "Sufficient cause' is much more stringent that the term 'reasonable cause' and even if a cause is reasonable, it has to be ascertained whether it was a sufficient cause or not.

6 ITA No.1342/Hyd/2025 Annamalai Raji vs. ITO 4.5. While deciding the prayer for condonation of delay, the court/appellate authority cannot ignore or give a go-by to the basic principle that the burden to prove the existence of sufficient cause is always on the appellant, and there is no presumption that the delay occasioned in the filing of the appeal is always bona fide and the condonation of delay is not the matter of right. The law of limitation is prescribed by the Income Tax Act under the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act which envisages that there should have been a sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within that period as prescribed. Where the appellant has failed to show the sufficient cause for condonation of delay, the application for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected. Even though a liberal approach has to be adopted, but that does not mean that any plea without any plausible or acceptable basis and not even bearing semblance or rationality has to be accepted, and delay has to be condoned. That shall be against the very spirit of law. Further, it is the party concerned to explain the reasons for delay and it is not the function of the appellate authority to find the cause of the delay. Prescription of time limit for filing appeals u/s 249(3) of the I.T. Act would become meaningless in such event. At the same time, the appellant must show that he was diligent all along in taking appropriate steps and the delay was caused notwithstanding his due diligence and if he/she appears to be guilty of laches or negligence and does not take appropriate steps for pursuing his remedy then he must be prepared to have his remedy barred without expecting condonation. The sufficient cause envisaged in section 249(3) has to be shown by the authority objectively used its discretion, DEPARTM appellant before a quasi-judicial authority objectively unsed its discretion. 4.6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Ramlingam Petitioner vs R.B. Bhavaneshwarivide order dated 13.1.2009 (2009) (SC2) GJX 106 (SC), held as under: "Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 does not lay down any standard or objective test. The test of "sufficient cause" is purely an individualistic test. It is not an objective test. Therefore, no two cases can be treated alike. The statute of Limitation has left the concept of "sufficient cause" delightfully undefined, thereby leaving to the Court a well-intentioned discretion to decide the individual cases whether circumstances exist establishing sufficient cause. There are no categories of sufficient cause. The categories of sufficient cause are never exhausted. Each case spells out a unique experience to be dealt with by the Court as such." 4.7. Further, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kabra (2002) 257 ITR 773 (P & H) held as under: "The provisions relating to prescription of limitation in every statute must not be construed so liberally that it would have the effect of taking away the benefit accruing to the other party in a mechanical manner.

7 ITA No.1342/Hyd/2025 Annamalai Raji vs. ITO Where the legislature spells out a period of limitation, and provides for power to condone the delay as well, there such delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. Now, it is a settled principle of law that the provisions relating to specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigorous and effective consequences." 4,8 The Delhi High Court in the case of Surinder Kumar Boveja vs. CWT (2006) 287 ITR 52 (Del) held as under: "In order to get condonation of delay in filling of an appeal, a party has to show sufficient cause. Sufficient cause means a cause beyond the control of the party e.g., a mistake made in good faith in respect of exercise of due care and attention. But where there is want of due care and attention or want of due diligence or sufficient cause the delay cannot be condoned. The appellant was satisfied with the relief granted by CWT(A). After being satisfied with the relief granted by CWT(A), he did not prefer an appeal against the order. However, the IT Department preferred the appeal against the order of CWT(A) before the Tribunal. Even during the arguments before the Tribunal, appellant supported the order of CWT(A) and stated that the order be not reversed. Appellant chose to prefer an appeal against the order of CWT(A) only after the order of the Tribunal making some observation in his favour came. A party who had been content with the order and due to that reason has not preferred an appeal, cannot later on, on seeing some observation in a judgment or a finding about the law cannot plead that the delay be condoned of the entire period for which the party had felt contented and not preferred an appeal. The appellant did not prefer an appeal against the order of CWT(A) for about five years in one case and for about one and half year in another case, Ignorance of law, appellant's neglect or failure to seek legal advice is not sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Ignorance of law is no excuse and Court cannot consider ignorance of law or mistake of law as sufficient cause for condonation of delay. If condonation is allowed on such ground, then there would be no end to the litigation and a party can prefer an appeal against an order at any point of time after find some observation in a judgment subsequently delivered by a higher forum. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation." 4.9. In this context, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Aditya Sapru v. ACIT (ITA No. 1421/MUM/2025, order dated 24.06.2025), wherein, the Hon'ble ITAT holds "that in the absence of sufficient/reasonable cause leading to the delay in filing of appeal the same is not required to be condoned; ITAT observes that even though the Assessee was dependent on its CA and there are no reasons to conclude the delay was malafide yet the Assessee being an individual taxpayer should have been conscious of his statutory obligations; Outlining the provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act, Tribunal opines that expression 'sufficient cause' is

8 ITA No.1342/Hyd/2025 Annamalai Raji vs. ITO commonly referred in the provisions of Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the Court while allowing any application/appeal is required to draw distinction between 'inordinate delay' and 'delay' that would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5; States that the Courts have time and again held that where the mandatory provision is not complied with and the delay is not properly, satisfactorily, convincingly explained then the Court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone; Tribunal emphasizes that the law of Limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim "Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium" which means that "it is for the general welfare that interest must be put to litigation"; ITAT elucidates that "to condone delay in a mechanical manner may amount to jeopardizing the legislative intent behind Section 5 of Limitation Act"; Emphasizes that discretion under Section 5 of Limitation Act has to be exercised duly informed by reasons and not based on whims or fancies; To understand the scope of the term "sufficient cause" in matters of delay, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj and Ors v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the sufficient cause does not include the negligent manner in which the applicant had acted or/ and there was a want of bona fide, on his/her part. If a party does not act diligently or remains inactive, it cannot qualify as sufficient ground allowing the court to exercise discretion in favour of such a party. Condonation of delay is not an automatic right but requires the person requesting it to provide a valid explanation for each day of delay and demonstrate a reasonable cause. "Sufficient Cause cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision in the case Surinder Kumar Boveja v. CWT (2006) 287 ITR 52 (Del.) has categorically held that delays cannot be routinely excused. In this decision, the Hon'ble High Court has further held as under: "Where the delay is prolonged and the assessee is not able to show that the delay had occurred in spite of exercise of due attention and diligence, the assessee cannot complain, if the delay is not condoned." condoned. In the case of Anshul Agarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, the hon'ble Apex Court held that the reason provided for the delay must be something beyond the individual's control that prevented them from approaching the Court In the decision rendered in the case of Rankak and Ors. v Rewa Coalfields Ltd. reported at AIR 1962 SC 361, the hon'ble Apex Court has held that the party has to show reason for delay on the last day of the limitation period and for each day thereafter. It was further held that

9 ITA No.1342/Hyd/2025 Annamalai Raji vs. ITO condonation is not a matter of right and that the Courts have to exercise discretionary jurisdiction. In the case of Mewa Ram (Deceased by L. Rs) &Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 45. The Hon'ble Supreme Court have time and again held that when mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay is not properly satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone. In the case of Jagdish Lal and Others v. State of Haryana (1996) 6 SCC 267 wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble court that the appellant kept on sleeping for the period and suddenly decided to file the appeal. In the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (2010) 5 SCC 4591, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even while a liberal approach is desirable in condoning the delay of short duration, stricter approach is required to be applied in cases of inordinate delay. Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan & Others, in the case of M/s. Binami Cement Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Others, (S.B. (sales Tax) Revision Petition No. 556/2011) decided that delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned for the reason that appellant failed to explain the specifically the delay for the particular period. It has been held that the courts, including the Supreme Court, no doubt have recommended liberal approach in considering applications for condonation of delay, yet the concepts such as liberal approach, justice oriented approach and substantial justice cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation especially when on facts the authority before which application under section 5 of Limitation Act is filed, finds no justification for the delay. Observes that "even though substantial justice should not be defeated by technicalities but that does not mean that any plea without any possible or acceptable basis and even without hearing, resemblance or rationality has to be accepted and delay has to be accepted and condoned which shall be against the very spirit of the law". Accordingly, the condonation application being berett of any 'sufficient cause' is hereby rejected. In the result, the appeal is dismissed on account of delay." It has already been discussed above that for qualifying u/s 249(3) for condonation of delay, the appellant must show that he was diligent all along with taking appropriate steps, and the delay was caused notwithstanding his due diligence; and if he appears to be guilty of lapses or negligence, then he must be prepared to have his remedy barred without expecting condonation.

10 ITA No.1342/Hyd/2025 Annamalai Raji vs. ITO 10. Thus, on these given facts, I am of the considered view that the delay in filing of the appeal cannot be condoned in absence of any justifiable reason. Simply attributing the cause of the delay in filing of appeal due to ignorance about income tax proceedings shows a careless and casual approach on the part of the assessee with regards to his statutory obligations. Though it is well accepted that no appellant derives any benefit by filing a delayed appeal, however the same should not be used as a tool, or an excuse to avoid and prolong and thus delay further consequent proceedings from the Department. Accordingly, in this case, the assessee has not been able to explain the reason for delay for the entire period and has merely taken a general plea based on general reasons. 1. Accordingly, the condonation application being bereft of any 'sufficient cause' is hereby rejected. In the result, the appeal is DISMISSED on account of delay. In the result, the appellant's appeal is DISMISSED in limine.” 4. The assessee, aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us.

11 ITA No.1342/Hyd/2025 Annamalai Raji vs. ITO engaged in procurement of paddy husk from rice mills of Andhra Pradesh and would sell the same to businessmen in Tamil Nadu. The Ld. AR to buttress his contention had drawn our attention to an affidavit of Shri Gownder Raju Aunty (supra), dated 11/05/2026, wherein he had deposed the said facts. However, the Ld. AR (who was accompanied with the assessee’s father) on being queried about the rice mills from whom paddy husk was procured, failed to comeforth with any reply.

12 ITA No.1342/Hyd/2025 Annamalai Raji vs. ITO had filed the appeal with the CIT(A) which by the time involved a delay of 1050 days. It was submitted that as the delay in filing of the appeal was not prompted by any lackadaisical conduct of the assessee but for bona fide reasons, therefore, the order of the CIT(A) may be set aside with a direction to condone the delay and redecide the appeal on merits.

13 ITA No.1342/Hyd/2025 Annamalai Raji vs. ITO 9. We have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions advanced by the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties and considered the material available on record.

14 ITA No.1342/Hyd/2025 Annamalai Raji vs. ITO assessment in his case vide order under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 11/03/2022 for a period as long as 1050 days, i.e., 2 ¾ years (approximately). In our view, the conduct of the assessee right from the stage of non-filing of the return of income, framing of ex- parte assessment and thereafter, the inordinate delay involved in the appeal filed before the CIT(A) clearly reveals his lackadaisical approach and is not of a case of bona fide omission on his part to file the appeal within the prescribed time period. We are of firm conviction that as the appeal filed by the assessee involves an inordinate delay of 1050 days and the same is not supported by any justifiable explanation, the CIT(A) had rightly declined to exercise the discretion vested with him to condone the same under section 249(3) of the Act. Our aforesaid view that inordinate delay cannot be mechanically condoned is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh (Dead) v. Jagdish Singh & Ors, (2010) 8 SCC 685 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Court while declining to condone the delay of 778 days had observed that liberal approach in condonation of delay does not mean unlimited indulgence. The Hon’ble Apex Court had in unequivocal terms observed that negligence, inaction or lack of performance cannot constitute a sufficient cause. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Apex Court based on its aforesaid observations had set aside the order of the Hon’ble High

15 ITA No.1342/Hyd/2025 Annamalai Raji vs. ITO Court which had condoned the delay. Also, we find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 has held that the cause for the delay in filing the appeal which by due care and attention could have been avoided cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of the limitation provision. Also, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Basawaraj & Anr. vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer is (2013) 14 SCC 81 (SC) has held that Limitation Law must be complied with full rigor, and the Courts cannot extend limitation on equitable grounds. Also, it was observed that sufficient cause requires absence of negligence and bona fide conduct. Further, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Limited (2012) 227 E.L.T 289 (SC) had deprecated mechanical condonation of delay in the appeal filed by the Government Departments. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (1997) 7 SCC 556 (SC) had observed that Law of Limitation may harshly effect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigor when the statute so prescribe and the Courts have no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. Lastly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chief Post Master General vs. Living Media India Limited (supra) has reiterated that the condonation is an exception, not a right.

16 ITA No.1342/Hyd/2025 Annamalai Raji vs. ITO 12. We thus, in the backdrop of the facts involved in the case before us which clearly smacks of lack of a bona fide reason leading to the inordinate delay of 1050 days involved in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A), respectfully follow the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that negligence and lack of bona fides disentitle a party for condonation of gross inordinate delay in filing of the appeal.

Sd/- Sd/- (MANJUNATHA G.) (RAVISH SOOD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 15th May, 2026. OKK / SPS

17 ITA No.1342/Hyd/2025 Annamalai Raji vs. ITO Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Annamalai Raji, D. No. W3, Venugopal Nagar, Kissan Nagar, Nellore 524002, Andhra Pradesh. 2 Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore 24-2-438, 1st Floor, GT Road, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh-524001 3 The Pr.CIT, Tirupati. 4 The DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order KAMALA Digitally signed by KAMALA KUMAR ORUGANTI KUMAR Date: 2026.05.15 15:08:34 ORUGANTI +05'30' Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Hyderabad.