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

आदेश / ORDER 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.

3 Shri Shyam Prakash Vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.687/RPR/2026

when reasonable efforts were made by the Department to effect service at the last known address. 7.3 After considering the proofs submitted by the AO it is noted that despite giving adequate opportunities to represent his case, no compliance was made by the appellant. Therefore, it is held that adequate opportunities were provided and there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. 7.3.1 Considering the same it is noted that once the Order was passed and duly served upon the appellant, there remained no doubt that the obligation of the appellant to file an appeal against the same within the time allowed u/s 249(2) of the Act was imminent. 7.4 In view of the aforesaid facts and discussion, I find that the appellant has failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate that there was any 'sufficient cause'. u/s 249(3) of the Act to justify the impugned delay and therefore, the same does not deserve to be condoned. 7.4.1 Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements which do not permit an appellant to file appeals beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 249(2) of the Act without any 'sufficient cause' u/s 249(3) of the Act: 1. Decision of the Hon'ble High Court, New Delhi in the case of Akash Pack Tech (P) Limited vs M/s Today Tea Limited in RFA 303/2020 & CM Appl. 33795/2020 (stay) dated 27.09.2024, (the application was filed seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal), held as under: "12. As mentioned above, the delay in filing the appeal in the present case is inordinate one of almost a year. Of course, length of delay may not be the decisive factor, in the sense that if satisfactorily explained, the delay of much longer period also can be condoned but if the explanation is not satisfactory, delay of even a few days cannot be condoned. Present is a case of absolutely no explanation, what to say of satisfactory explanation of delay in filing the appeal. 13. Considering the above circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the appellant. As such the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is dismissed." 2. Decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata, Bench "A" in its recent judgment delivered on 12/06/2024, in the case of

4 Shri Shyam Prakash Vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.687/RPR/2026

Liberal Association For Movement of People v. Commissioner of Income-tax (Exemption) [2024] 164 taxmann.com 83 (Kolkata -. Trib.). In this case assessee had filed an appeal before the Tribunal after a delay of 291 days along with a condonation of delay application. Assessee contended vide an affidavit that management of society was engrossed in carrying out activities of society, and thus, could not find time to file appeal on time. It was noted by the Hon'ble Tribunal that it was difficult to understand that an aggrieved assessee had casually allowed matter of filing appeal in time to transpire in such a manner that said substantial delay had occurred. The question was whether there was no sufficient and satisfactory explanation filed by assessee to prove that there was a reasonable cause for said delay in filling appeal. In these set of facts, the Hon'ble Tribunal ruled against the assessee as under: 4. In this case, it is evident that the appellant has conveniently decided not to justify the delay in filing by informing this Bench on the detailed reasons, even on day-to-day basis, for which the appeal could not be filed in time. 4.1. At this juncture, it is necessary to delve into the genesis of limitation and how a judicial forum needs to deal with matters pertaining to condonation of delay. 4.2. Almost all the tax laws, whether they relate to direct taxes or Indirect taxes, contain provisions for condonation of delay in filing appeals, if the appellant (whether it is the taxpayer or the revenue) proves to the satisfaction of the appellate authority that he had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. The genesis for such provisions can be traced to section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which reads as follows: "Extension of prescribed period in certain cases. — Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), may be admitted after the prescribed period if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he has sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period.

5 Shri Shyam Prakash Vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.687/RPR/2026

Explanation: The fact that the appellant or the applicant was misled by any order, practice or judgment of the High Court in ascertaining or computing the prescribed period may be sufficient cause within the meaning of this section." 4.3. The two essential ingredients for condoning delays are: (i) the existence of 'sufficient cause', and (ii) the satisfaction of the competent authority that such sufficient cause was proved as existing. Thus, the first issue about the existence of sufficient cause covers the factual matrix in respect of which the onus to prove is squarely on the litigant, while the second issue about 'satisfaction' covers the discretionary area in which the competent authority, this Bench, is expected to act. It is by now well settled that the expression 'sufficient cause' has to be understood to mean a cause beyond the control of the appellant or one which the appellant, even with the exercise of due care and attention, could not avoid. The expression is required to be interpreted liberally so as to advance substantial justice when no negligence nor inaction nor want of bona fides is imputable to the appellant. Further, it is a general principle of law that whenever a Court is vested with a discretionary power, such a discretion must be exercised not in an arbitrary, vague or fanciful manner but on judicial principles. The fundamental principle, which has been universally recognised as the true rule of guidance for the exercise of discretion to condone delays is to see whether the party claiming indulgence has been reasonably diligent in prosecuting his appeal. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Sayed Mohd. Baquir El Edross AIR 1981 SC 1921, the Supreme Court laid down the-following principles that should govern the exercise of powers of condonation under section 5: The party seeking relief has to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal, etc., within the prescribed time. The explanation has to cover the entire period of delay. A litigant should not be permitted to take away a right which has accrued to his adversary by lapse of time.

6 Shri Shyam Prakash Vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.687/RPR/2026

The proof of sufficient cause is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court under section 5. After sufficient cause is shown, the Court is to inquire whether in its discretion it should condone the delay. The discretion conferred on the Court is a judicial discretion and must be exercised to advance substantial justice. No liberal view should be taken merely because the defaulting party is a Government. Even if there was a strong case for acceptance of the appeal on merits that could not be a ground for condonation of delay. When there is remiss on the part of the advocate, the question that comes up for consideration is whether the mistake was bona fide or was merely a device to cover the ulterior purpose such as latches on the part of the litigant or an attempt to save limitation in an underhand way. 4.4. It was also held in an earlier decision in the case of RamlalMotilal v. Rewa Coalfields AIR 1962 SC 361, that 'every day's delay must be explained'. Another important requirement is that the 'cause' for the delay must have arisen before the expiry of the limitation period, and, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat AIR 1981 SC 733, "no event or circumstance arising after the expiry of limitation period can constitute sufficient cause". 3. Decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Kolkata, Bench "B" " in its recent judgement delivered on 02/04/2024 in the case of Manmohak Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer [2024] 161 taxmann.com 457 (Kolkata Trib.) wherein the head-note reads as under: On appeal to Tribunal it was found that appeal was time barred by 24 days - Further, on perusal of application filed for condonation of delay, it was viewed that neither an affidavit of Director was filed, nor exact details were submitted as to how this delay had happened - To explain delay, assessee had annexed a letter along with appeal

7 Shri Shyam Prakash Vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.687/RPR/2026

stating that appeal papers were submitted to one 'D' its tax practitioner and she was busy in other tax matters and, therefore, could not file appeal - However, assessee had not filed any confirmation from 'D' showing that appeal papers were submitted to her within time and she was busy in other tax matters and, therefore, could not file appeal - It was just an effort to persuade one to believe in this make belief story, otherwise there was no substance - Whether therefore, appeal was to be dismissed being time barred - Held, yes [Para In the [para 3] [in favour of revenue] 4. In the case of Vijay Prakash Mehta v. Collector Of Customs [1989] 175 ITR 540 (SC), the Apex Court has held that if the statute gives a right to appeal upon certain conditions, it is upon fulfillment of those conditions that the right becomes vested in, and exercisable by, the appellant. 5. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Somerset Place Co- operative Housing Society Limited vs. Income Tax Officer 16(2)(1) reported in 57 taxmann.com 7, examined the issue whether the applicant had shown 'sufficient cause' to become entitled for condonation of delay of five years. After considering the facts and the opposing arguments, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held as under (emphasis supplied): "...Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be stretched to bring about a situation of unsettling judicial decisions which stood accepted by the parties. If the contention of the applicant is accepted, it would create a situation of chaos and unsettling various orders passed from time to time by the Tribunal as accepted by the parties. The legislative mandate in stipulating a limitation to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation cannot be permitted to be defeated when a litigant has taken a decision not to pursue further proceedings. A new ruling is no ground for reviewing a previous judgment. If this is permitted, the inevitable consequence is confusion, chaos, uncertainty and inconvenience as then no orders can ever attain finality though accepted by parties........A reliance on behalf of the applicant on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji &Ors." (supra) and the decision in the case of "N.Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy" s. M. Krishnamurthy" (supra) is also inappropriate in the facts of the present case. These decisions lay down the principles of law the Courts would follow to consider what would be a sufficient cause under

8 Shri Shyam Prakash Vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.687/RPR/2026

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, permitting delay. There can be no down in these decisions. This decision on of no dispute on the proposition as laid not assist the applicant in view of the voluntary decision of the applicant not to assail the order of the Tribunal at the relevant time and accepting the decision of the Tribunal for the Assessment Year 2003-04. We are of the considered opinion that only because the applicant has succeeded on the same issue for the Assessment Year 2008-09, the same cannot be said to be a sufficient cause so as to condone the delay of five years for the applicant to approach this Court in filing the appeal. 6. The Id. Appellate Tribunal, Cochin, in Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs The DCIT (TDS), CPC, Ghaziabad in ITA Nos. 341- 345/Coch/2018 dated 08.10.2018 reported in (2018) 173 ITD 384, is worth mentioning (emphasis supplied): "It was submitted that the delay is to be condoned since the issue on merit covered in favour of the assessee. This submission ignores the fact that the object of the law of limitation is to bring certainty and finality to litigation. This is based on the Maxim "interest reipublicae sit finislitium i.e. for the general benefit of the community at large, because the object is every legal remedy must be alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. The object is to get on with life, if you have failed to file an appeal within the period provided by the Statute. It is for the general benefit of the entire community so as to ensure that stale and old matters are not agitated and the party who is aggrieved by an order can expeditiously mover higher forum to challenge the same, if he is aggrieved by the Apex Court in many cases, the law assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights as found in the Maxim "Vililantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt". 7. A similar view has been taken on an identical scenario by the Id. Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, in Lakshya Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT, DCIT, CPC TDS, Ghaziabad (I.T.A. No.6979- 6984/Mum/2017 dated 23.01.2019). 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj vs The Spl Land Acquisition Officer (Civil Appeal No. 6974 of 2013, dated 22.08.2013) held and observed as under (emphasis supplied): "13. The Statute of Limitation is founded on public policy, its

9 Shri Shyam Prakash Vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.687/RPR/2026

aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale......An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or laches." 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Thakur Singh And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat reported in AIR 1981 SC 733, held as under (emphasis supplied): "At the outset, it is urged by learned counsel for the appellants that the High Court erred in condoning the delay in filing the appeal, and the appeal should have been dismissed as barred by limitation. We have examined the facts carefully. It appears that initially the State Government took a decision not to file an appeal and it allowed the period of limitation to lapse. Subsequently, on certain observations made by the High Court while considering a revision petition by Bhulabhai that it was a fit case where the State Government should file an appeal and on notice being issued by the High Court to the State Government in the matter, the appeal was filed. It was filed three months after limitation had expired. A faint attempt was made to show that when the initial decision was not to file an appeal all the papers had not been considered by the department concerned, but we are not the papers had not been impressed by that allegation. The truth appears to be that the appeal was not filed at first because the State Government saw no case on the merits for an appeal, and it was filed only because the High Court had observed - and that was long after limitation had expired - that the case was fit for appeal by the State Government." 10. In Balwant Singh (dead) v. Jagdish Singh and others (2010) 8 SCC 685, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held and observed as under (emphasis supplied): "25. We may state that even if the term "sufficient cause" has to receive liberal construction, it must squarely fall within the concept of reasonable time and proper conduct of the party concerned. The purpose of introducing liberal construction normally is to introduce the concept of

10 Shri Shyam Prakash Vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.687/RPR/2026

"reasonableness" as it is understood in its general connotation. 26. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in as of his acting a vigilantly." 11. A reference can be made to the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ornate Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO, Ward 3(2)(3) (2009) 312 ITR 193, wherein it was observed as under (para 11 & 12, emphasis supplied): "11. Another aspect of the case is that the revenue and/or even the assessees are expected to act with care and expeditiousness and not to let things lie unprocessed for months together....... The law of limitation is normally to be construed strictly as it has the effect of vesting for one and taking away right from the other. To condone the delays in a mechanical or a routine manner may amount to jeopardizing the legislative intent behind section 5 of the Limitation Act. ....... It interposes a statutory bar after a certain period giving quietus to the rights arising from a judgment which is sought to be impugned. ........ Where the parties chose to sleep over their rights for prolonged periods without any just cause, can hardly claim equity in justice particularly faced with the statutory provisions of section 5 of the Act." 12. The Third Member case decided by the Id. Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, in Jt. CIT, Special Range-1, Chennai vs Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd [2007] reported in 104 ITD 149 is apposite. The facts were that the delay was sought to be justified with reference to the affidavit of the director stating that appellate order was misplaced/forgotten and found while sorting out the unwanted papers, following

11 Shri Shyam Prakash Vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.687/RPR/2026

which, steps were taken for the preparation of the appeal. It was held that this clearly showed that the delay was due to the negligence and inaction which could have been avoided by the exercise of due care and attention. A similar view was taken by the Id. Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, in Shri KunalSuranavs ITO, (3), Mumbai dated 19.04.2013 144 ITD 195. 13. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in reported in Moddus Media Pvt. Ltd. vs M/s. Scone Exhibition Pvt. Ltd. (RFA 497/201, dated 18 May, 2017), held as under: "11. The litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court of law against him or initiated at his instance. The litigant cannot be permitted to cast the entire blame on the Advocate. It appears that the blame is being attributed on the Advocate with a view to get the delay condoned and avoid the decree. After filing the civil suit or written statement, the litigant cannot go off to sleep and wake up from a deep slumber after passing a long time as if the court is storage of the suits filed by such negligent litigants. Putting the entire blame upon the advocate and trying to make it out as if they were totally unaware of the nature or significance of the proceedings is a theory put forth by the appellant/applicant/defendant company, which cannot be accepted and ought not to have been accepted. The appellant is not a simple or rustic illiterate person but a Private Limited Company managed by educated businessmen, who know very well where their interest lies. The litigant is to be vigilant and pursue his case diligently on all the hearings" 14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, very recently in the case of State of Odisha v. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 191, decided on 09-02- 2026 has held that "Condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is entirely the discretion of the Court whether or not to condone delay." Accordingly, the Hon'ble Court rejected the applications for condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the SLP.

12 Shri Shyam Prakash Vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.687/RPR/2026

7.5 Procedural rules are essential in the orderly, efficient and speedy administration of justice and cannot be characterized as mere technicalities that may be ignored at will to suit the convenience of a party. The determination of the timeliness of the petition is important. It ought to be within the period prescribed by law as a jurisdictional requirement. Therefore, the delay in filing appeal by the appellant is not condoned and appeal is dismissed on this count in limine. 8. As a result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.”

13 Shri Shyam Prakash Vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.687/RPR/2026

CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and was highly negligent which resulted in such inordinate delay of 2443 days. It is dictated by the Hon’ble Apex Court that delay cannot be condoned just on the basis of an Act of generosity and that the pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. 6. A. Krishnaish since deceased by Lrs, CIVIL APPEAL No. 317 of 2025 (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.9719/2020), dated 08.01.2025 has held that while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It had further observed that once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations.

14 Shri Shyam Prakash Vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.687/RPR/2026

preferred by the assessee that the delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity. The Hon’ble Apex Court had emphasized that reasons explained by the assessee should be bonafide and that there shall be no negligence on the part of the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that delay should not be condoned merely as an Act of generosity and that the pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party.

15 Shri Shyam Prakash Vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) ITA No.687/RPR/2026

Order pronounced in open court on 14th day of October, 2026.

Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; �दनांक / Dated : 14th October, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5.

SAMIRA आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, Digitally signed by SAMIRAN BERA N BERA Date: 2026.10.14 // True Copy // 14:35:41 +05'30' Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur