SHRI SHYAM PRAKASH,DANISH KUNJ, KOLAR RAOD, RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2(1), BHILAI, AAYKAR BHAWAN, DURG, BHILAI

ITA 687/RPR/2026Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 October 2026AY 2012-201315 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dismissing the assessee's appeal as barred by limitation. The Tribunal found that the assessee had been negligent in pursuing his rights, leading to an inordinate delay of 2443 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The Tribunal emphasized that delay cannot be condoned merely as an act of generosity and that the pursuit of substantial justice should not prejudice the opposing party. Citing pronouncements from the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Tribunal reiterated that condonation of delay is not a matter of right but a discretion of the court, which must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The court must ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered, and if the delay is caused by negligence or an inactive approach, it cannot be condoned. The Tribunal noted that procedural rules are essential for orderly and efficient administration of justice and are not mere technicalities to be ignored. Therefore, the delay was not condoned, and the appeal was dismissed in limine.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Shyam Prakash, filed an appeal before the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2012-13. There was a delay of 2443 days (over 81 months) in filing this appeal. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation, finding that the assessee had not established sufficient cause for the delay as required by Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(Appeals)/NFAC noted that the assessee had not provided any application seeking condonation of delay or any documentary evidence to substantiate a sufficient cause. The Assessing Officer's reports indicated that local inquiries to trace the assessee at his last known address were unsuccessful, and notices were served by affixture. The assessee's counsel argued that due to a change of address in 2009, the assessee was unaware of departmental notices, but failed to provide evidence of duly communicating the address change to the department.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 2443 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for Assessment Year 2012-13 is condonable under Section 249(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the assessee's alleged unawareness of departmental notices owing to a change of address. Assessee's Contention: The assessee, a retired SAIL employee, shifted from Bhilai to Bhopal in 2009. Due to this change of address, the assessee was allegedly unaware of the notices and communications from the Income Tax Department. No specific legal provisions or case law were cited by the assessee's counsel in support of this argument. Revenue's Contention: The revenue relied on the orders of the subordinate authorities. It argued that due to the inordinate delay and the absence of a condonation petition filed by the assessee before the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC should be confirmed. The revenue's argument is implicitly based on the provisions of Section 249(3) of the Act and the findings of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 249(3),Section 249(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Hearing: 13.10.2026Pronounced: 14.10.2026

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 10.09.2026 for the assessment year 2012-13 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2.

In this case, as per Form 35, there is a delay of 2443 days i.e. more than 81 months in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. That as discernable from the order of the Ld.

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 249(3)

All 1,376 judgments and leading authorities on Section 249(3) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →