SHASHIKANT SHIVNARAYAN MAURYA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 18(3)(4), MUMBAI

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual engaged in trading in plastic goods, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2000-01 on 09.01.2001 declaring total income of ₹75,640/-. The Assessing Officer received information from the Investigation Wing vide letter dated 23.04.2004 that the assessee had paid ₹20,00,000/- in cash to Shri Vijay Gupta and others during May 1999. The information was based, on an FIR lodged by the assessee with Naupada Police Station, Thane on 24.12.2001 making an allegation that Shri Vijay Gupta and others had cheated him in connection with purchase and sale of gold. According to the Assessing Officer, the FIR showed that the assessee had paid ₹20,00,000/- in cash for purchase of gold, whereas this transaction was not disclosed in his return of income. The Assessing Officer, therefore, reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 10.05.2004. The assessee, vide letter dated 14.06.2004, requested that the return of income which was originally filed on 09.01.2001 may be treated as the return filed in response to notice under section issued notice u/s 148 of the Act.

During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee initially appeared before the Assessing Officer on 16.07.2004 and 21.07.2004. The Assessing Officer thereafter asked the assessee to produce the books of account, purchase and sales bills, expense vouchers, bank statements and also the names and addresses of the persons from whom, according to the assessee, the amount of ₹20,00,000/- had been collected for the proposed purchase of gold. The assessee, however, did not furnish these details. The Assessing Officer gave further opportunities to the assessee on 24.09.2004 and thereafter through notices dated 11.10.2005, 06.01.2006 and 27.01.2006. the Assessing Officer observed that some of these communications were returned with the remark “not claimed”, and the Assessing Officer also caused service by affixture through the Ward Inspector. Since the assessee did not thereafter participate in the proceedings or produce evidence explaining the source of ₹20,00,000/-, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte under section 144 of the Act vide order dated 02.03.2006. He treated the cash payment of ₹20,00,000/- as the assessee’s income and assessed the total income at ₹20,75,640/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals). The appeal was filed on 28.06.2019. The assessee stated that he had not received the assessment order earlier and came to know about the assessment only when recovery proceedings were initiated and his bank account was attached. According to the assessee, he approached the Assessing Officer and obtained a certified copy of the assessment order on 12.03.2019. During the appellate proceedings, however, the assessee did not file any written submissions despite notices issued by Ld. CIT(A) on 06.01.2021, 15.02.2023, 19.05.2023, 19.06.2023 and 27.06.2023. The learned CIT(Appeals), therefore, passed the order on the basis of the Statement of Facts filed with Form No.35. The learned CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee had neither produced the complaint/FIR relied upon by him nor furnished any material to rebut the findings of the Assessing Officer. The CIT(Appeals) further noted that sufficient opportunities had been given to the assessee both during the assessment as well as the appellate proceedings, but the assessee failed to avail them. The learned CIT(Appeals) accordingly upheld the addition of ₹20,00,000/- and dismissed the appeal vide order dated 13.07.2023.

The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by the learned CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

At the outset, we note that the present appeal has been filed with an inordinate delay of 1005 days. The assessee has filed an affidavit seeking condonation of the delay. Since the question whether sufficient cause has been shown goes to the very maintainability of the appeal, we consider it appropriate to reproduce the affidavit in toto as under:

We have carefully considered the affidavit as well as the common written submissions filed by the learned counsel in these appeals with respect to the delay in filing of the present appeals. In our view, the assessee has not shown any reason for the delay of 1005 days in filing of the present appeal. The Affidavit merely states that there were “unavoidable circumstances” and that the appeal could not be filed within time. What those unavoidable circumstances were, when they arose, how long they continued and how they prevented the assessee from filing the appeal have not been stated at all. There is no date-wise explanation for the delay. Thus, the affidavit, on its face, does not contain any specific explanation for the delay in filing the present appeal.

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel filed common written submissions stating that the assessee had shifted from Mumbai to Gujarat, joined Gujarat Pipavav Limited on 18.10.2010, changed his mobile number and e-mail address, had certain personal and family difficulties and that his earlier Chartered Accountant had not properly looked after the income-tax matters. It was also submitted that the assessee became aware of the appellate order when recovery proceedings were initiated. These statements, however, do not explain the delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal. The impugned order of the learned CIT(Appeals) is dated 13.07.2023, whereas the delay before us is 1005 days. There is no specific statement as to the date on which the assessee actually became aware of the order of the learned CIT(Appeals), what steps he thereafter took, when he contacted his counsel, or what had prevented him from filing the appeal during this entire period. No correspondence or other material explaining the delay has been placed before us.

We are conscious that the expression “sufficient cause” under section 253(5) of the Act has to receive a reasonable and justice-oriented interpretation. At the same time, condonation of delay is not automatic merely because the assessee requested that the matter be decided on merits. The person seeking condonation must place before the Tribunal facts which reasonably explain why the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period. The longer the delay, the greater is the need for a clear and bona fide explanation covering the relevant period.

In C.I. Builders (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [2025] 178 taxmann.com 257 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition against the decision refusing to condone a delay which had been attributed to negligence of the counsel. The assessee was expected to exercise reasonable care in following its own proceedings and could not merely shift the entire responsibility to the professional engaged by it. The principle is relevant to the present case because, apart from a general allegation that the earlier Chartered Accountant did not properly look after the matter, the assessee has placed no material showing any reasonable follow-up on his part.

Similarly, in MVR Projects (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2026] 184 taxmann.com 308 (Hyderabad - Trib.), the Tribunal declined to condone an inordinate delay of 2345 days where reasons such as miscommunication with counsel, illness of the accountant and financial difficulties were stated in general terms. The Tribunal held that vague explanations, without establishing a sufficient or reasonable cause which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal, could not justify such an inordinate delay.

The Hon'ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court in Somerset Place Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. v. ITO [2015] 57 taxmann.com 7/231 Taxman 806/374 ITR 307 (Bom.) has also held that the requirement of limitation cannot be rendered meaningless and the test is whether a prudent litigant has shown sufficient cause for not approaching the appellate forum within time.

We have also considered the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Vijay Vishin Meghani v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2017] 86 taxmann.com 98/398 ITR 250 (Bom.), where a delay of 2984 days was condoned. However, the said decision does not assist the assessee on the facts before us. In that case, the assessee had placed a specific and detailed explanation supported by a personal affidavit regarding the professional advice received by him and the course of proceedings followed on such advice, and the Hon'ble High Court found that the explanation did not establish any deliberate or intentional delay. In the present case, the affidavit contains no such particulars. It merely uses the expression “unavoidable circumstances” without placing on record even one circumstance which prevented the assessee from filing the appeal for 1005 days.

We therefore find that the assessee has not given any cogent reason whatsoever explaining what prevented him from filing the present appeal during the period of delay of 1005 days. The explanation is vague, general and not supported by a proper chronology of events or evidence. In these circumstances, we are not satisfied that there existed sufficient cause within the meaning of section 253(5) of the Act for admitting the appeal after expiry of the prescribed period. We accordingly decline to condone the delay.

Since the delay of 1005 days is not condoned, the appeal is barred by limitation and is accordingly dismissed without going into the merits of the grounds raised by the assessee.

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

The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer, while completing the assessment for A.Y. 2000-01 under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, made an addition of ₹20,00,000/- on account of cash allegedly paid by the assessee to Shri Vijay Gupta and others and assessed the total income at ₹20,75,640/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and thereafter levied penalty of ₹6,30,780/-. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals). Though the learned CIT(Appeals) condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, the assessee did not file any written submissions despite several opportunities. The learned CIT(Appeals), therefore, dismissed the appeal vide order dated 18.07.2023.

The assessee is now in appeal before us. We find that the present appeal has been filed with an inordinate delay of about 1000 days. The assessee has filed the similar affidavit as in the connected appeal, containing only a general statement that the delay occurred due to “unavoidable circumstances”. No specific reason, chronology or supporting material has been furnished explaining what prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal within time. Even the common written submissions filed by the learned counsel do not explain the period of delay in filing this appeal. The judicial precedents with respect to condonation of delay and the requirement of showing sufficient cause have already been discussed by us while deciding the connected appeal on quantum additions and, therefore, the same are not being repeated here.

In view of the above, we are not satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the prescribed period. We accordingly decline to condone the delay. Consequently, the appeal being barred by limitation is dismissed without going into the merits of the penalty. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2001-02 on the ground that his income for the year was below the taxable limit. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from the Investigation Wing vide letter dated 23.04.2004 that the assessee had paid ₹50,00,000/- in cash to Shri Vijay Gupta and others during May 2000. The information was based on an FIR lodged by the assessee with Naupada Police Station, Thane on 24.12.2001 alleging that Shri Vijay Gupta and others had cheated him in connection with purchase and sale of gold. According to the Assessing Officer, the FIR showed that the assessee had paid ₹50,00,000/- in cash for purchase of gold and the source of such payment had not been disclosed to the Income-tax Department. The Assessing Officer therefore reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act on 10.05.2004.

During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee stated that he had not filed a return of income for the year as his income was below the taxable limit. The Assessing Officer thereafter asked the assessee to produce the books of account, purchase and sales bills, expense vouchers, details of bank accounts and the names and addresses of the persons from whom, according to the assessee, the amount of ₹50,00,000/- had been collected for the proposed purchase of gold. The assessee initially appeared before the Assessing Officer but thereafter failed to furnish the required details despite repeated opportunities. Some of the subsequent notices were also returned unserved or marked “not claimed”, and service was also attempted by the Ld.AO through the Ward Inspector. In the absence of any explanation or supporting evidence regarding the source of the cash payment of ₹50,00,000/-, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte under section 144 of the Act. The Ld.AO treated the sum of ₹50,00,000/- as the assessee’s income for the year. Since no return had been filed, the Assessing Officer also estimated the assessee’s other income at ₹75,000/- on the basis of the higher income disclosed in the returns for the preceding assessment years. The Assessing Officer assessed the total income at ₹50,75,000/-.

The assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals). The learned CIT(Appeals) condoned the delay in filing the first appeal. However, despite notices issued on 06.01.2021, 15.02.2023, 19.05.2023, 19.06.2023 and 27.06.2023, the assessee did not file any written submissions. The learned CIT(Appeals) observed that the assessee had failed to produce any evidence to rebut the findings of the Assessing Officer. He accordingly dismissed the appeal vide order dated 13.07.2023. The assessee is now in appeal before us against the said order.

We find that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of 1005 days. The assessee has filed a similar affidavit and relied upon the same common reasons as considered by us in the connected appeals. As already discussed by us above, neither the affidavit nor the common written submissions give any specific or satisfactory explanation covering the period of delay. The judicial precedents governing condonation of delay have also been discussed by us in the preceding paragraphs and are not being repeated. For the same reasons, we are not satisfied that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within time. We accordingly decline to condone the delay of 1005 days and dismiss the appeal as barred by limitation without going into the merits.

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

The brief facts of the case are that the present appeal relates to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act with respect to aforesaid additions discussed above and levy of penalty of ₹17,50,900/-.

The assessee carried the penalty order in appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals). The learned CIT(Appeals) condoned the delay in filing the first appeal. However, despite notices dated 06.01.2021, 19.05.2023, 27.06.2023 and 10.07.2023, the assessee did not file any written submissions. The learned CIT(Appeals) therefore proceeded on the basis of the material available on record and observed that the assessee had failed to rebut the basis of the penalty. He accordingly dismissed the appeal vide order dated 18.07.2023.

The assessee is now in appeal before us. We find that the present appeal has been filed with a delay of about 1000 days. The assessee has filed a similar affidavit and relied upon the same common reasons as in the connected appeals. As already discussed by us while dealing with those appeals, no specific reason has been given explaining the period of delay and no material has been placed on record to show that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within time. For the same reasons, we decline to condone the delay. Consequently, the appeal being barred by limitation is dismissed without going into the merits.

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

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