TEJINDER RANA, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

The assessees as per aforesaid captioned belong to the same group of companies. It is noted that in all the years of appeal before me, there is huge inordinate delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal. That in ITA No.678/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2017-18, there is delay of 619 days, in ITA Nos. 674/RPR/2026, 675/RPR/2026 and 676/RPR/2026 for A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, there is delay of 650 days in each of the appeals.

That as discernable from the reasons provided by the assessee, it is contended that there was recovery proceedings from the bank, that companies were facing acute financial crisis. However, I am only at the threshold issue as to how a corporate assessee or individual belonging to a corporate group will not comply with the law of limitation for filing appeal within due date before the Tribunal? It is not a case of the assessee that the assessee is ignorant, it is not an assessee that there are no persons knowing about procedure of filing appeal before the Tribunal since all the people associated with the said group company i.e. Hanumant Construction Pvt. Ltd. and UBB Infrastructure Ltd can be

In the present cases, all these assessees have neglected in filing appeals before the Tribunal and resultantly in all these cases, there has been huge inordinate delay of more than 600 days. That as statutory authority embedded within the Act itself interprets the legal provision legally and in its strictest form and same shall also apply to the law of limitation when the Tribunal is also adjudicating the issue of delay. As I have already observed that it is only addressing the issue of non- compliance and delayed filing of appeals before the Tribunal and there emanates no specific reason as to why corporate assessee shall wait more than 600 days to just filing of appeal before the Tribunal and therefore, it is nothing but an Act of gross negligence where the assessee rested over its rights or his/her rights in a casual manner without adhering to the provisions of the Act. I also find that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that condonation of delay cannot be an act of generosity and that such Act should not cause prejudice to the opposite party.

In the present scenario, when I am addressing the issue of filing appeal within the due time before the Tribunal and that too for a corporate assessee, I do not find any bonafide reasons furnished by the assessee for condoning such huge inordinate delay nor the assessee had

In these cases, the very conduct of the assessee company reveals negligence on its part. That any prudent assessee being aggrieved by the appellate order would suo-motto within the reasonable time as granted by law of limitation would first file appeal. In these cases, it is clearly evident that the assessee was sleeping on its rights in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and was highly negligent which resulted in such inordinate delay of 619/650 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.

In recent times it had been clearly laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court that if delay is caused by negligence or inactive approach, it cannot be condoned. Similarly, condonation of delay is not a matter of right but a matter of discretion of the Court. In the case of State of Orissa Vs. Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 161, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that liberal approach does not mean forgiving negligent delay. In the case of Thirunagalingam Vs.

The fact of the matter is that the assessee company cannot take advantage of its own wrong. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest any sufficient reasons for condonation of such huge inordinate delay before the Tribunal. The judicial principles enshrined in afore-stated decisions dictates that such inordinate delay combined with negligence and lack of sufficient reasons for such huge inordinate delay results in dismissal of appeal on limitation itself. That even within the expression of ‘justice oriented approach’, it would be unfair towards Revenue to condone such delay and provide relief to the assessee on the ground of limitation where the assessee itself is negligent and had adopted a casual approach.

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR (1962) 361 (SC) had held that seeker of justice must come with clean hands. In the present cases, the reasons advanced by the assessee do not show any good and sufficient reasons for condonation of such a huge delay. I accordingly decline to condone the delay of 619/650 days involved in these appeals and without going into the merits of the cases, dismiss the appeals of the assessee as barred by limitation.

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos.674, 675, 676 & 678/RPR/2026 for A.Ys. 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18 are dismissed.