What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeals were barred by limitation due to the inordinate and unexplained delay. The Tribunal emphasized that negligence and a casual approach by the assessee do not warrant condonation of delay.

The assessee's appeals were filed with significant delays ranging from over a year to over two years. The assessee also failed to appear for hearings and had not complied at the first appellate stage.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing the appeals is sufficient to dismiss the appeals on the grounds of limitation, considering the assessee's negligence and lack of bonafides.

Goyal Sales Pvt Ltd., Raipur vs Ward-1(1), Raipur | ITAT Raipur 2026

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

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Hearing: 16.06.2026Pronounced: 17.06.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The captioned appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the separate orders of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Ld.CIT(A), ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Pune dated 10.05.2024, 18.12.2023 and 15.04.2024 for the assessment years 2016-17 & 2012-13 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

That when the matter was called up for hearing none appeared for the assessee. At the outset, it is noted that all these appeals are barred by limitation and there is huge inordinate delay in filing of these appeals before the Tribunal. In ITA No. 418/Rpr/2026 there is a delay of 1 Yr. 295 days, in ITA No. 417/Rpr/2026 there is a delay of 2 Yr. 83 days, in ITA No. 413/Rpr/2026 there is a delay of 1 Yr. 326 days. It is also noted that there was no compliance at all by the assessee even at the First Appellate stage and even today when the matter had been called for hearing after issuance of notice to the parties still the assessee nor its AR were present in the court. This is a clear Act of negligence by the assessee and also is a testimony to its casual and evasive nature regarding legal process. There is no evidence on record to even suggest that the assessee is bona fide. That being negligent the assessee choose to wait for such huge inordinate time period before filing these appeals. The law of limitation has to be strictly complied with only

3 Goyal Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos.418, 417 & 413/RPR/2026

exception that the assessee should not be negligent and that he must have acted bona fide. In all these appeals there is no evidence of bonafideness on the part of the assessee nor there is any effort from the assessee to ensure timely filing of these appeals before the Tribunal. The assessee choose to be evasive without complying with the processes of law. The Hon’ble Apex Court in various decisions have held that negligent and mala fide assessee should not be given advantage of condonation of delay and such appeals has to be dismissed in limine on the ground of such huge inordinate delay itself.

That on this issue of condonation of delay, ITAT, SMC, Raipur in 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 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

4 Goyal Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos.418, 417 & 413/RPR/2026

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. Guruswamy 5. & 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 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.

5 Goyal Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos.418, 417 & 413/RPR/2026

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. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 9. 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.” 4. The fact of the matter is that the assessee has not brought on record any evidence to even suggest that it is bonafide assessee and that it 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 such inordinate delay when the assessee is negligent and has adopted casual approach towards process of law. In view thereof, I

6 Goyal Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur ITA Nos.418, 417 & 413/RPR/2026

decline to condone the delay involved in filing these appeals and even without going into the merits of the cases, dismiss these appeals as barred by limitation.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 17th June, 2026.

Sd/- PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; �दनांक / Dated : 17th June, 2026. Tanmay, 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, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur.

GOYAL SALES PVT LTD. , RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. WARD-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments