CLARION ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 2, PUNE

ITA 1866/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 October 2026AY 2013-147 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 Tribunal held that the delay of 1660 days in filing the appeals was inordinate and warranted a stricter approach, as per the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee. The reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were considered vague and insufficient. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had accessed the Income Tax Portal multiple times after the CIT(A)'s order, which would have made pending actions and uploaded orders visible. Therefore, the assessee had not demonstrated any sufficient cause for the substantial delay. Consequently, the delay was not condoned, and the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed. The decision in ITA No. 1866/PUN/2026 was applied mutatis mutandis to the other six appeals (ITA Nos. 1867 to 1872/PUN/2026).

What were the facts?

The assessee, Clarion Enterprises, filed seven appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Pune Bench, challenging orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-14 and 2014-15. The appeals were filed with a significant delay of 1660 days. The assessee attributed the delay to issues with its tax consultant and a bonafide impression that all appeals were filed. The assessee also mentioned closing business operations and receiving reminders for TDS demand. The ITAT noted that the assessee had accessed the Income Tax Portal multiple times after the CIT(A)'s order, suggesting awareness of pending actions. The delay was also present before the CIT(A), exceeding 2.6 years.

What were the issues?

1. Whether there is sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay of 1660 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal, under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the delay was due to a tax consultant's failure to file appeals for all quarters, leading to a bonafide impression that compliance was made. They also cited the closure of business operations and a misunderstanding of the TDS demand status. The assessee relied on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others for a liberal approach to condonation. Revenue's contentions: The revenue contended that the assessee's plea was baseless as no proof of appointing the tax consultant for filing appeals was provided, nor was the consultant's name mentioned. The revenue highlighted that the assessee had accessed the Income Tax Portal multiple times after the CIT(A)'s order, indicating awareness of pending actions and the uploaded order. The revenue argued that the assessee had not established any sufficient cause for the substantial delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

Before: SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Abhay A Avachat

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar, Addl. CIT

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : These bunch of seven appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for Assessment Years (AYs) 2013-14 and 2014-15 on22.07.2021.

Since, the issue involved is same, for the sake of convenience, these seven appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

First, we shall take up the appeal in ITA No. 1866/PUN/2026 for AY 2013-14.

ITA Nos.1866 to 1872/PUN/2026

Findings and Analysis :

In this case, there was a delay of 1660 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. The same are as under : “1. The Partnership Firm is regularly assessed to income tax under jurisdiction of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Pune having TAN PNEM17149G. 2. In our case, we had filed 8 appeals against levy of late fee imposed by TDS-CPC pertaining to AY 2013-14 and AY 2014- 15. In each year 4 quarters each were involved and thus 8 appeals were filed in September 2019. 3. The CIT (A), NFAC finalised the appeals and passed appellate order dated 22nd July 2021 dismissing all the 8 appeals. The NFAC did not admit the appeals citing reason of delay in filing of appeals and did not condone delay in filing of all the 8 appeals. 4. The CIT A's order was passed dated 22nd July 2021 and the due date of filing ITAT appeal is 60 days. Thus, the due date was 22nd Sept 2021, and the extended due date was 1 March 2022 considering the Suo motto order of the SC since the order was passed in covid pandemic period. However, the appeal before the Hon. ITAT is being filed in third week of April 2026 resulting in delay of 1506 days. 5. To attend the CIT appeal proceedings, we appointed a local tax council under advice and guidance of our advocate in Mumbai. After dismissing of the appeal before CIT A, it was discussed to take curative action and to do requisite compliance. However, that council filed appeal before the ITAT Pune Bench in Sept 2021 for quarter 1 of AY 2013-14. He did not file appeal for other 7 quarters. We were under bonafide impression that all the appeals were filed and compliance was made. 6. In Oct 2020, we filed application under the DTVSV Scheme 2020 for all the 8 appeals of two years. Further the CIT (TDS) issued Form 3 in all cases in Jan 2021 giving conditional approval stating that the forms will be valid and accepted and further action to be taken subject to condition that the CIT A condone the delay in appeal filing in respect of all the 8 appeals since the appeals were filed belatedly. However, in July 2021 we received dismissal order from the NFAC.

ITA Nos.1866 to 1872/PUN/2026

Follow up was made with the CIT (TDS) office for approval, however it did not progress further. 8. From FY 2020-21 onwards, the partnership firm closed its business operations and did not carry out any business. From July 2025 and onwards, we started receiving reminders for TDS demand and recovery notice. However no follow up was made since our business operations were closed. Thereafter we approached another council to check status of TDS demand since we were under impression that TDS demand would have been nullified as the ITAT had allowed our appeal and deleted the levy u/s 234E. 9. However, in the month of March 2026, it was noticed that only one quarter's demand was deleted and the balance 7 quarters demand was standstill / open on the portal. At that point, the new council advised us to file appeal before the hon. tribunal urgently since the issue in appeal was covered in our favour.”

4.1 In this case, the assessee merely blamed its Tax Consultant. However, the assessee has not filed any documents to prove that Tax Consultant was given the responsibility of filing appeal. The assessee has not even mentioned name of the Tax Consultant. Thus, the plea of the assessee is baseless.

4.2 The assessee also took the plea that partnership firm was closed.

4.3 However, it is observed that the assessee has filed return of income as under : AY Date of filing of return 2021-21 31.12.2021 2022-23 26.07.2022 2023-24 30.07.2023

4.4 The CIT(A)’s order was dated 22.07.2021. Thus, it can be observed that the assessee had accessed the Income Tax Portal three times after the order of the Ld. CIT(A), to file the returns of

ITA Nos.1866 to 1872/PUN/2026

income as mentioned above. Once, the assessee opens the Income Tax Portal with PAN Number, the actions pending and orders uploaded are visible. Therefore, the assessee could have easily understood that the Ld. CIT(A) has already uploaded the appeal order.

4.5 The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Portal displays the pendency of the appeal once it is validly filed. Therefore, there is no merits in the arguments of the assessee for such a massive delay. Therefore, on perusal of the affidavit filed by the assessee, it is observed that the assessee has not established any sufficient cause for substantial delay of 1660 days.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others Civil Appeal Nos.8183-8184 of 2013 vide order dated 13/09/2013 has laid down following principles for deciding Condonation Application: Quote, "15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

ITA Nos.1866 to 1872/PUN/2026

v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.

vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.

vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.

viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.

ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.

x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.

xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.

xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.

xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. "Unquote. (emphasis supplied).

5.1 Thus, Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained that the Inordinate Delay warrants Strict Approach, and earlier conduct of the petitioner should be analyzed.

ITA Nos.1866 to 1872/PUN/2026

5.2 Even before the Ld. CIT(A), there was delay of more than 2.6 years.

5.3 In this case when we apply the above mentioned Principles, the Delay in this case is Inordinate hence warrants Stricter approach. The reasons mentioned in the condonation petition are vague. Assessee has failed to demonstrate that there was any sufficient cause for delay, as discussed by us in earlier paragraphs.

5.4 For all the reasons discussed above, the Delay is not condoned, and appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

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

The facts pertaining to ITA Nos. 1867 to 1872/PUN/2026 are identical to facts pertaining to ITA No. 1866/PUN/2026 discussed above. Therefore, our decision in ITA No. 1866/PUN/2026 will apply mutatis mutandis to ITA Nos. 1867 to 1872/PUN/2026 as well. Accordingly, assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1867 to 1872/PUN/2026 are dismissed on account of delay.

To sum up, all the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 1866 to 1872/PUN/2026 are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th October, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated :30-10-2026 Ravi Kumar 6

ITA Nos.1866 to 1872/PUN/2026

आदेशकीप्रतितितिअग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/ The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘A’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्डफ ईल / Guard file. Sunil Kumar आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, Digitally signed by Sunil Kumar More // True Copy // More Date: 2026.11.03 11:57:58 Assistant Registrar आयकरअपीलीयअदिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune +05'30'

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →