BHARGAVI GOPINATH,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-2, Bengaluru dated 24.01.2020 vide DIN: ITBA/APL/M/250/2019-20/1024245366(1) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”) for the assessment year 2006-07.

ITA No.2052/Bang/2025 Smt. Bhargavi Gopinath, Bengaluru Page 2 of 16

ITA No.2052/Bang/2025 Smt. Bhargavi Gopinath, Bengaluru Page 3 of 16

ITA No.2052/Bang/2025 Smt. Bhargavi Gopinath, Bengaluru Page 4 of 16

ITA No.2052/Bang/2025 Smt. Bhargavi Gopinath, Bengaluru Page 5 of 16

ITA No.2052/Bang/2025 Smt. Bhargavi Gopinath, Bengaluru Page 6 of 16

ITA No.2052/Bang/2025 Smt. Bhargavi Gopinath, Bengaluru Page 7 of 16

ITA No.2052/Bang/2025 Smt. Bhargavi Gopinath, Bengaluru Page 8 of 16

ITA No.2052/Bang/2025 Smt. Bhargavi Gopinath, Bengaluru Page 9 of 16

ITA No.2052/Bang/2025 Smt. Bhargavi Gopinath, Bengaluru Page 10 of 16

3.1 Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee reiterated the contentions stated in the condonation petition and vehemently submitted that the assessee and the M/s Air Deccan had entered into an agreement and terms of clause (9) of the said agreement, the assessee had to pay 20% of the gross sales on monthly basis as license fees. It is submitted that the AO by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act were applicable to all payments made during the year and it was not restricted to the amounts that were payable at the end of the year despite of the fact that the ITAT vide its order in ITA No. 280/Bang/2014 dated 21/11/2014 set aside the original assessment and directed the AO to consider the issue a fresh in accordance with the judgment of the ITAT in the case of Ananda Markala in ITA No. 1584/Bang/2012 dated 13/09/2013. Further, the ld. AR submitted that at the time of Appellate proceedings in 2016, the assessee reached out to the M/s United Breweries Holdings Ltd for providing the form 26A but due to acquisition, the company encountered temporary management and operational challenges. Thus, it is submitted that due to the management and operational challenges the assessee was not provided the form 26A. Subsequently, due to covid-19 pandemic, the assessee was unable to follow up with the company to provide a certificate. It is also submitted that in the year 2025, the assessee received a call from the department regarding the outstanding demand and thereafter the assessee reached out to present counsel and accordingly, present counsel suggested that since the outstanding is increasing, the appeal should be preferred before the ITAT without waiting for Form 26A. The present counsel after examining all the documents produced by the assessee, prepared the appeal for filing and same was filed on 22.9.2025 with a delay of 2001 days.

ITA No.2052/Bang/2025 Smt. Bhargavi Gopinath, Bengaluru Page 11 of 16 3.2 Further, AR of the assessee also submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous application No. 665 of 2021 and Nos. 21 & 29 of 2022 has held that in computing period of limitation for any suit/appeals/application, period from 15.3.2020 to 28.2.2022 shall stand excluded and in cases where limitation would have expired during the above period, time limit of 90 days or actual balance time (whichever is higher) shall be available from 1.3.2022 for filing appeal etc. and thus by virtue of said decision, the last date to file an appeal before this Tribunal was 24.3.2020. However, the appeal actually filed on 22.9.2025 for the reasons mentioned above resulting in delay of 1212 days, excluding the period from 15.3.2020 to 29.5.2022 and accordingly prayed to condone the delay by lenient and compassionate view.

ITA No.2052/Bang/2025 Smt. Bhargavi Gopinath, Bengaluru Page 12 of 16 opinion that u/s 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit the delay filed beyond the period of limitation where it is established that there exists a “sufficient cause” on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The explanation, therefore, becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time.

5.1 Undisputedly, the appeal before us was filed on 22/09/2025, whereas the ld. CIT(A)-2, Bengaluru passed & served the order u/s 250 of the Act on 24/01/2020. The Registry in the Order sheet dated 22/09/2025 has noted that “Appeal is time-barred by 2001 days.” Thus, there is an inordinate delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. On perusal of the above condonation application, we observed that the main cause for such huge delay of 2001 days was due to the management and operational challenges in United Breweries Holdings Ltd, the assessee was not provided the form 26A. Subsequently, due to covid-19 pandemic, the assessee was unable to follow up with the company to provide a certificate. It is also submitted that in the year 2025, the assessee received a call from the department regarding the outstanding demand and thereafter the assessee reached out to present counsel and accordingly, present counsel suggested that since the outstanding is increasing, the appeal should be preferred before the ITAT without waiting for Form 26A.

5.2 First of all we could not understand what the link is between obtaining form 26A with the filing of the Appeal before this Tribunal. Secondly, the assessee has stated in the condonation application that M/s Air Decan was merged with M/s Kingfisher Airlines (Parent Company United Breweries Holdings Ltd) effective from April 2008 whereas the original assessment order was passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act on 28/01/2008 itself i.e. way before the merger.

ITA No.2052/Bang/2025 Smt. Bhargavi Gopinath, Bengaluru Page 13 of 16 Further, we also agree with the contention of the ld. DR that the assessee in the present case is an individual and carries on the business of manufacturing and trading of bakery products which has nothing to do with the acquisition of M/s Air Deccan by the M/s Kingfisher Airlines & management & operational challenges in M/s United Breweries Holdings Ltd in filing his appeal before the Tribunal. Further, if we consider the above contentions of the assessee as well as Covid pandemic, even then the assessee slept over the matter & no cogent reason has been advanced by the assessee except by saying that in the year 2025, the assessee received a call from the department regarding the outstanding demand and thereafter the assessee reached out to present counsel and accordingly, present counsel suggested that since the outstanding is increasing, the appeal should be preferred before the ITAT without waiting for Form 26A. This clearly shows the inaction & callous approach of the assessee. It is apt to mention that the law of limitation is the impediment of the Maxim Vigilantibus Non Dormenteibus Jura Subvenitent that ensures the case is filed within the stipulated time frame to avoid unnecessary delays. On the other hand, the condonation of delay is the safeguard to the law of limitation and bars certain cases in which the delay in filing the appeal is justifiable i.e. can be backed by having “sufficient cause”.

5.3 In the present case the explanation offered, as stated above in the petition for condonation of delay, cannot be termed as ‘cause’ much less any ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the inordinate delay. These are mere excuses and not explanation. The Hon’ble Supreme court in 2023 INSC 885 Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through L.Rs. and Ors. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (09.10.2023 - SC) : MANU/SC/1098/2023 has held as under :-

“29. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that substantive rights

ITA No.2052/Bang/2025 Smt. Bhargavi Gopinath, Bengaluru Page 14 of 16 of private parties and the State are not defeated at the threshold simply due to technical considerations of delay. However, these decisions notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the explanation, the length of delay being immaterial. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the courts must distinguish between an 'explanation' and an 'excuse'. An 'explanation' is designed to give someone all of the facts and ITA No. 53/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 13 lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person to point out that something that has happened is not his fault, if it is really not his fault. Care must however be taken to distinguish an 'explanation' from an 'excuse'. Although people tend to see 'explanation' and 'excuse' as the same thing and struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a distinction which, though fine, is real. An 'excuse' is often offered by a person to deny responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort of a defensive action. Calling something as just an 'excuse' would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher courts for adjudication.”

5.4 Further, the Apex court in the case of Rajneesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. Ved Prakash in SLP (Civil Nos.935-936 of 2021 dated 21.11.2024) held as follows:

ITA No.2052/Bang/2025 Smt. Bhargavi Gopinath, Bengaluru Page 15 of 16

“12. As regards the law of limitation, we may refer to the decision of this Court in Bharat Barrel & Drum MFG Go. v. The Employees State Insurance Corporation, (1971) 2 SCC 860, wherein this Court held as under:- “The necessity for enacting periods of limitation is to ensure that actions are commenced within a particular period, firstly to assure the availability of evidence documentary as well as oral to enable the defendant to contest the claim against him; secondly to give effect to the principle that law does not assist a person who is inactive and sleeps over his rights by allowing them when challenged or disputed to remain dormant without asserting them in a Court of law. The principle which forms the basis of this rule is expressed in the maximum vigilantibus, non dermientibus, jura subveniunt(the laws give help to those who are watchful and not to those who sleep). Therefore, the object of the statutes of limitations is to compel a person to exercise his right of action within a reasonable time as also to discourage and suppress stale, fake or fraudulent claims.” (Emphasis supplied)

5.5 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in H. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnaiah (Civil Appeal No.317 of 2025 dated 8.1.2025) has observed as under:

ITA No.2052/Bang/2025 Smt. Bhargavi Gopinath, Bengaluru Page 16 of 16 inaction for a long, it cannot be presumed to be nondeliberate 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. 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 is only if the sufficient cause assigned by the litigant and the opposition of the other side is equally balanced that the court may bring into aid the merits of the matter for the purpose of condoning the delay. 17. We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. The rules of limitation are based on the principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. No court should keep the ‘Sword of Damocles’ hanging over the head of a litigant for an indefinite period of time.”

5.6 Considering the fact that there is no proper explanation offered by the assessee for the delay, according to us, the assessee has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay of 2001 days. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19th May, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Waseem Ahmed) (Keshav Dubey) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Bangalore, Dated 19th May, 2026. VG/SPS Copy to:

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.