M/S SECURED SECURITY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 183/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 May 2026AY 2019-207 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals), stating that the inordinate delay of over 3 years was due to the assessee's negligence and lack of bonafides. Condonation of such delay is not a matter of right and cannot be granted as an act of generosity.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) after a delay of 3 years and 10 days. The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal in limine as it was barred by limitation and no sufficient cause was demonstrated.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was sufficiently explained and should be condoned. The Tribunal's focus was on the assessee's conduct and the absence of a valid reason for the significant delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA

For Respondent: Shri CH. Rajeswara Reddy, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.05.2026Pronounced: 05.05.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 09.12.2025 for the assessment year 2019-20 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee. However, an adjournment petition has been filed which is rejected. The matters are heard after recording the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and on a careful perusal of the materials available on record.

3.

At the very outset, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine since barred by limitation. The assessee had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC after a delay of 3 years 10 days. That as evident from Page 3, Para 5.1 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC’s order no ‘sufficient cause’ was demonstrated by the assessee in terms with Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and hence, the appeal was dismissed.

4.

Further, it is noted that so far merits are concerned, it is with regard to the disallowance of ESI & PF payment of employee’s contribution after the due dates as specified in the relevant statutes itself. Be that as it may, the adjudication in the present appeal before us pertains to the

3 M/s. Secured Security Solutions Private Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.183/RPR/2026

justification of dismissing the appeal by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC without condoning the delay of 3 years 10 days. The fact of the matter is that there is no bonafideness established by the assessee as evident from record explaining the said huge inordinate delay of 3 years 10 days. 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 first appellate authority for 3 years 10 days which itself shows carelessness and casual approach of the assessee while pursuing the process of law. The law of 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. In this case, even sufficient cause was not established in terms with Section 249(3) of the Act before the first appellate authority.

5.

In this case, the very conduct of the assessee reveals negligence on its part. That any prudent assessee being aggrieved by the assessment 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 his rights in filing the appeal and was highly negligent which resulted in such huge inordinate delay of more than 3

4 M/s. Secured Security Solutions Private Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.183/RPR/2026

years. 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.

6.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H. 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 Thirunagalingam 7. 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

5 M/s. Secured Security Solutions Private Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.183/RPR/2026

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 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.

8.

In the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it has been clearly ruled 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.

9.

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 cause for condonation of such huge inordinate delay before the First Appellate Authority or before this Bench. The judicial principles enshrined in various decisions dictates that such inordinate delay

6 M/s. Secured Security Solutions Private Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.183/RPR/2026

combined with negligence and lack of sufficiency of cause for the delay results in dismissal of the case on the ground of 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 was negligent to comply with law of limitation. Similar observation has been made by the ITAT, SMC Bench, Raipur in the case of M/s. Gaurabh Construction Co. Vs. ITO-1, Korba, ITA No.32/RPR/2025, dated 16.02.2026.

10.

In view of the aforesaid facts and above referred judicial pronouncements, we do not find any infirmity with the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which is upheld.

11.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; �दनांक / Dated : 05th May, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� /The Appellant. 2. ��यथ� /The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर ब�च,

7 M/s. Secured Security Solutions Private Limited Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.183/RPR/2026

रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Samiran Bera, Sr. PS, ITAT, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary Raipur आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. Digitally signed by Samiran Bera, Sr. PS, ITAT, Raipur Date: 2026.05.05 18:02:27 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →