ROUNAK MODI, RAIGARH, RAIGARH vs. ITO, WARD-1, RAIGARH, RAIGARH

In the instant case the First Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal of the assessee as barred by limitation since the appeal was filed by the assessee with huge inordinate delay of 986 days i.e. approximately 2 Yr. 8 Months and 16 days. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a reasonable cause for which such delay had occurred.

Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR submitted that there is no evidence on record to even suggest a reasonable cause for such delay. It is nothing but the assessee is negligent and has a casual approach for the process of law and therefore, the order of CIT(A) should be confirmed.

Having heard the parties I find strength in the contention of the Ld. Sr. DR. That as evident from the findings of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC no reasonable cause has been put forth by the assessee for such huge

That on similar parameters of appeal filed belatedly with inordinate 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 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 fact of the matter is that the assessee has not brought on record any evidence to even suggest that he is bonafide assessee and that he 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 do not find any infirmity in the findings of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.