SAUMYA SERVICES, DURG,DURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BHILAI, DURG

That even without going into the merits of the matters, at the very outset, it is noted that both these appeals are time barred by 915 days before this Bench. That explaining the reasons for delay, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of one of the partners was in the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and the said partner got favourable order, for which, the present assessee had not pursued the matter which resulted in delay in both these appeals. The fact of the matter is every assessee is identified and treated differently through his respective PAN and the assessment as well is separate. That one partner getting relief from the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court does not entails other partner to violate the law of limitation and file appeal belatedly before this Forum. Furthermore, this is a gross act of negligence where the assessee had waited for 915 days before filing appeal in the Tribunal. There is no bonafideness established in the conduct of the assessee nor any evidence put forth to suggest that the assessee was vigilant with the process of law.

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 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, 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

Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of 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

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.

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

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.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.

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. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. Samira Digitally आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, signed by n Bera, Samiran Bera, // True Copy // Sr. PS, ITAT, Sr. PS, Raipur Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur Date: ITAT, 2026.05.05 17:49:42 Raipur +05'30'