SANT ROHIDAS LEATHER INDUSTRIES & CHARMAKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

ITA 3855/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 October 2026AY 2020-215 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT held that the delay of 516 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal could not be condoned. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) & Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), and H. Guruswamy & Ors. v. A. Krishnaiah (Since Deceased) through LRs. These judgments emphasize the need for "sufficient cause" for delay, the public policy behind the law of limitation, and the principle that liberal approaches should not be used to defeat the law of limitation. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not furnished any justifiable explanation for the delay and had also remained ex parte before the CIT(A), indicating a lack of due diligence. Consequently, the delay was not condoned, and the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. The issue of non-prosecution was implicitly addressed by the dismissal due to the delay and lack of appearance.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sant Rohidas Leather Industries & Charmakar Development Corporation Limited, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2020-21 against an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC dated 26-Aug-2024. The appeal was filed with a delay of 516 days. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT when the case was called, despite summons being sent via speed post and email. The revenue's representative was present and ready to argue. The ITAT noted that the assessee had also remained ex parte before the CIT(A), leading to the dismissal of that appeal for non-prosecution. The ITAT decided to proceed with the hearing ex parte.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 516 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, considering the assessee's failure to provide a justifiable explanation and their conduct before the lower authorities. - Assessee's contention: Not recorded as the assessee did not appear. - Revenue's contention: The assessee has not established "sufficient cause" for the delay and has not acted diligently, as evidenced by their ex parte appearance before the CIT(A) and failure to explain the significant delay before the ITAT. 2. Whether the appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution. - Assessee's contention: Not recorded as the assessee did not appear. - Revenue's contention: The assessee's absence and failure to prosecute the case before the ITAT, coupled with the delay, warrants dismissal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

10(26B)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

Pronounced: 15.10.2026

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067982124(1) dated 26-Aug-2024 for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1) 1. Condonation of delay in Appeal with CIT(A)

ITA 3855/MUM/2026 SANT ROHIDAS LEATHER INDUSTRIES & CHARMAKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED 2. Dismissing the appeal for “non prosecution” 3. Disallowance of exemption u/s 10(26B) 4. Taxing income contrary to Article 265 5. Consequential relief – interest, demand and refund 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called out repeatedly. From the case records, we note that summons in this case were sent by the Registry through speed post as well as email. Considerable time has passed since the summons were issued at the address provided by the assessee in Form 36; therefore, drawing an inference under the General Clauses Act, it is presumed that service of summons/notice has been duly effected.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR present in the court is ready with the arguments; therefore, we have decided to proceed with the hearing of the appeal ex parte.

We further note that there is a delay of 516 days in filing the appeal before us and that the assessee has not furnished any justifiable explanation for the said delay.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, summarised the law on the subject by holding that where a case is presented before a court beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the applicant must establish “sufficient cause” that prevented him from approaching the court within the prescribed period. The expression “sufficient cause” means an adequate and reasonable explanation for the delay. Where a party is found to have been negligent, to have acted without bona fides in the facts and circumstances of the case, or to have failed to act

ITA 3855/MUM/2026 SANT ROHIDAS LEATHER INDUSTRIES & CHARMAKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED diligently or remained inactive, there can be no justifiable ground for condoning the delay.

We also find that, in a subsequent decision pronounced on 28.04.2024, in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) & Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (LA), in SLP (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to and discussed various judicial precedents on the subject and held as under:

“7. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the legal maxim ‘interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium’, i.e., it is for the general welfare that a period of limitation be put to litigation. The object is to put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. Even public policy requires that there should be an end to the litigation otherwise it would be a dichotomy if the litigation is made immortal vis-a-vis the litigating parties i.e. human beings, who are mortals.”

We further note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in H. Guruswamy & Ors. v. A. Krishnaiah (Since Deceased) through LRs, Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025, decided on 08.01.2025, set aside the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 7220 of 2014, whereby the writ petition had been allowed after condoning the delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under in paragraph 13:

“13. We are at our wits end to understand why the High Court overlooked all the aforesaid aspects. What was the good reason for the High Court to ignore all this? Time and again, the Supreme Court has reminded the District judiciary as well the High courts that the concepts such as ‘liberal approach’, ‘Justice oriented approach’, ‘substantial justice’ should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation.”

ITA 3855/MUM/2026 SANT ROHIDAS LEATHER INDUSTRIES & CHARMAKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED 8. We also noticed from the record that the assessee remained ex parte before the Ld. CIT(A), and the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was dismissed on that count as well. This conduct, when considered alongside the failure to furnish any justifiable explanation for the delay of 516 days in filing the present appeal before us, indicates that the assessee has not demonstrated due diligence in pursuing the proceedings before the revenue authorities and this Tribunal.

In view of the foregoing facts and the legal position discussed above, and in the absence of any sufficient cause to explain the delay of 516 days, we find no justifiable basis for condoning the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 516 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal is not condoned, and the appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation.

10.

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15.10.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH SANDEEP GOSAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 15.10.2026 RY-SrPS

ITA 3855/MUM/2026 SANT ROHIDAS LEATHER INDUSTRIES & CHARMAKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED Copy to: SANT ROHIDAS LEATHER INDUSTRIES & CHARMAKAR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, 1 5TH FLOOR BOMBAY LIFE BUILDING 45 VEER NARIMAN RPAD FORT MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400001, MAHARASHTRA

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYA KAR BHAWAN CHURCHGATE 2 MUMBAI CIT(A) 6, NFAC, MUMBAI-400020, MAHARASHTRA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →