GREEN WOODS,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1846/HYD/2026Status: PendingITAT Hyderabad23 September 2026AY 2023-2413 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish 'sufficient cause' for the inordinate delay of 429 days in filing the appeals. The Tribunal noted that while a justice-oriented approach is generally adopted for condoning delay, the requirement of demonstrating a reasonable, bona fide, and satisfactory explanation for the delay cannot be dispensed with. In this case, the assessee's sole explanation of being a small individual taxpayer unfamiliar with online procedures was not supported by any cogent evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized the assessee's consistent non-compliance throughout the assessment proceedings (under Sections 147 and 148), the first appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A), and even before the Tribunal, where the assessee failed to appear on multiple occasions. This conduct was deemed to reflect negligence and inaction, rather than circumstances beyond the assessee's control. Relying on Supreme Court decisions in P.K. Ramachandran, Basawaraj, and Pathapati Subba Reddy, the Tribunal concluded that the law of limitation must be applied with rigor, and delay cannot be condoned on equitable or sympathetic grounds without a demonstrated sufficient cause. The judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee were distinguished. Consequently, the petitions for condonation of delay were rejected, and the appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Mohammed Abdul Wajid, filed two appeals (ITA Nos. 1845 & 1846/Hyd/2025) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench, for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. These appeals were filed against separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 29.06.2024. The appeals were delayed by 429 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, citing lack of awareness of online compliance procedures as a small individual taxpayer. The Revenue opposed the condonation, highlighting the assessee's consistent non-compliance throughout assessment, first appellate, and tribunal proceedings, including failure to respond to notices under Sections 147 and 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and notices from the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee did not appear on multiple hearing dates before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is sufficient cause to condone the delay of 429 days in filing the appeals, as required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, turning on the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' in the context of the assessee's explanation and conduct. Assessee's Contention: The assessee, a small individual taxpayer, was not conversant with online compliance procedures and was unaware of the appellate orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Reliance was placed on judicial precedents, including Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the delay of 429 days was inordinate and that the assessee failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause. The general assertion of lack of knowledge of online procedures was not substantiated by evidence. The Revenue pointed to the assessee's consistent non-compliance from the assessment stage (reopening under Section 147, failure to file return under Section 148, and non-response to physical notices) through the first appellate stage and before the Tribunal, indicating negligence and lack of bona fides rather than circumstances beyond control.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 5,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘B‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia

Hearing: 08/09/2026

Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

These two appeals are filed by Shri Mohammed Abdul Wajid (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) both dated 29.06.2024 for the A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-

15.

Both the present appeals filed by the assessee involve a common issue relating to condonation of delay and, therefore, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

2.

Both these appeal

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 5

All 847 judgments and leading authorities on Section 5 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →