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

ITA 1846/HYD/2026Status: FixedITAT 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 condoning the inordinate delay of 429 days. The Tribunal noted that while a liberal approach is generally adopted for condonation of delay, it cannot dispense with the requirement of establishing a reasonable, bona fide, and satisfactory explanation. In this case, the assessee's sole explanation was a general assertion of being a small taxpayer unfamiliar with online procedures, unsupported by any evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal emphasized the assessee's consistent non-compliance throughout the assessment proceedings (failure to file return under Section 148, not responding to notices, including a physical notice) and the first appellate proceedings (failure to respond to notices from Ld. CIT(A)), as well as before the Tribunal (non-appearance on two hearing dates). This conduct demonstrated negligence and inaction, rather than circumstances beyond the assessee's control. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court decisions in P.K. Ramachandran Vs. State of Kerala [(1997) 7 SCC 556], Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer [(2013) 14 SCC 81], and Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. Vs. Special Deputy Collector (LA) (dated 08.04.2024), which reiterated that the law of limitation must be applied with rigor, and delay cannot be condoned on equitable or sympathetic grounds without sufficient cause. The Tribunal found the assessee's relied-upon precedents distinguishable. 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. The appeals were against orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 29.06.2024. The assessee sought condonation of a delay of 429 days in filing these appeals. The assessee claimed the delay was due to being a small individual taxpayer not conversant with online compliance procedures and unaware of the appellate orders. The revenue opposed the condonation, highlighting the assessee's consistent non-compliance throughout assessment and first appellate proceedings, and the lack of supporting evidence for the claimed reasons.

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, considering the assessee's explanation of being a small individual taxpayer unfamiliar with online procedures and unaware of the appellate orders? Assessee's contention: The assessee argued that as a small individual taxpayer not conversant with online compliance procedures, they were unaware of the appellate orders, and this constituted a sufficient cause for the delay. They relied on judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that the delay of 429 days was inordinate and that the assessee failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause. They argued that the assessee's explanation was a general assertion lacking supporting evidence. The revenue also pointed to the assessee's consistent non-compliance from the assessment stage (reopening under Section 147, notice under Section 148) through the first appellate proceedings and even before the Tribunal, indicating negligence and lack of bona fides.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →