Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed multiple appeals for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15. While there were minor delays in filing appeals before the Tribunal for some cases, the primary issue was that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeals due to an inordinate delay of 9 to 10 years in filing rectification applications under Section 154(7) of the Income Tax Act, which is far beyond the statutory four-year limit.
Held
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dismissing all appeals. It found the assessee grossly negligent for the significant delay in seeking rectification without any bonafide reasons. The Tribunal emphasized that judicial principles do not condone such inordinate delays and negligence, even under a 'justice oriented approach', as it would allow the assessee to benefit from its own wrong.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC was justified in dismissing the assessee's appeals due to an inordinate delay of 9-10 years in filing rectification applications under Section 154(7) of the Income Tax Act, indicating gross negligence on the part of the assessee.
Sections Cited
154, 154(7)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM
The captioned appeals preferred by the assessee emanates from the respective orders of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 13.11.2025, 18.12.2025 and 14.11.2025 for the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee. However, an adjournment petition has been filed which is rejected. The adjournment cannot be claimed as right of the assessee and it is not the prerogative of the assessee to demand adjournment in each and every case even it is coming for the first time before the Bench. That whether to grant adjournment or not, it depends on the Forum before which the appeal is pending and it depends on facts and circumstances of each case. That so far as the present case is concerned, why the adjournment is rejected, will further being explained and explored in this order in the subsequent paragraphs.
3. Coming to the appeal in for A.Y.2013-14, there is delay of 12 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Sr. DR confirmed the same and this fact of delay is established from Form 36. That after perusal of the documents on record
3 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai to 140/RPR/2026 and on hearing submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR, the said delay of 12 days is condoned following the ratio laid down in the judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC); (ii) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (iii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025.
4. That so far as merits of the case is concerned, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of rectification in terms with Section 154(7) of the Act. That on perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, it is evident that there is delay of 9 years by the assessee for pressing such rectification u/s. 154 of the Act. That as per Section 154(7) of the Act, no amendment shall be made after expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be amended was passed. In this case, there is delay of 9 years. The fact of the matter remains, this itself is an evidence that the assessee being negligent of the entire process of law and it was waiting for 9 years for filing such rectification which was way beyond the permissible limit as 4 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai to 140/RPR/2026
per Section 154(7) of the Act. There is no bonafide reasons disclosed, for such, huge inordinate delay and the Ld. Counsel would have explained sufficient cause for whatever reasons as would have been best known to him, however, when there has been such huge delay in the process of law itself, the assessee cannot be termed as bonafide since it is the assessee who was aggrieved by certain order of the Department and it itself needed to file rectification as per law within specified time framed. The fiscal statutes shall have to be interpreted in its strictest form when the assessee is negligent and there is unreasonableness in the entire facts covering the issue of delay. The assessee cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own negligence in not pursuing the course of law within period of limitation. If that is allowed, the purpose and process of law and judicial adjudication will get defeated. Hence, in these parameters also, keeping the matter pending before the Tribunal and granting adjournment would not have reached any logical conclusion. In the same parameters of huge inordinate delay, the ITAT, SMC Bench, Raipur in the case of M/s. Gaurav Construction Co. Vs. ITO-1, Korba, dated 16.02.2026 had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of huge inordinate delay upholding the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and the same ratio has been followed in subsequent case of Lalji Wakre Vs. ITO-2(1), Bilaspur (C.G.), dated 23.02.2026. For the sake of completeness, the relevant observation
5 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai to 140/RPR/2026 of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Gaurav Construction Co. Vs. ITO-1, Korba (supra) are extracted as follows:
“2. At the very outset, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of huge inordinate delay in filing appeal of the assessee before the said authority. There is delay of 9 years and 233 days for filing the appeal by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC after considering the submissions of the assessee regarding condonation of the said inordinate delay, had dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that reasons for the said delay were explained before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC a/w. affidavit filed and therefore, once explanations were furnished, the number of days of delay is immaterial.
Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and submitted that there has been no evidence brought on record by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee to substantiate such huge delay nor sufficient cause for such condonation has been brought out and such huge delay in filing an appeal itself shows that the assessee is negligent. In other words, there is no evidence to suggest that the assessee had acted bonafide and that there is no negligence on its part, therefore, findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC should be upheld.
I have heard the rival contentions, analyzed the facts and circumstances in this case. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal since there has been inordinate delay of 9 years 233 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the said authority. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that they have given their submissions before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and accordingly, the said authority should not have dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay itself. However, the fact of the matter is that the assessee cannot take advantage of its own wrong. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest any sufficient cause for condonation of such delay before the First Appellate Authority nor it has been established that there was no negligence on the part of the assessee for non-compliance regarding law of limitation. That the judicial principles
6 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai to 140/RPR/2026 dictates that such inordinate delay combined with negligence and lack of sufficiency of cause for the delay results in dismissal of the case on the ground of limitation itself.
6. That the Hon’ble Apex Court in certain judgments has held that justice oriented approach has to be considered while condoning the delay of the assessee. The word ‘justice oriented approach’ also combines bonafideness on the part of the assessee as well as sufficient cause for such condonation of delay coupled with the merits of the matter.
In the present case, no evidence has been furnished for establishing such sufficient cause for such huge delay of 9 years 233 days. That at the same time, no materials were brought on record to even suggest that the assessee was vigilant enough and that the delay had occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. That when there is huge delay of 9 years 233 days in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, it is a clear case of negligency of the assessee. That even within the connotation 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 was negligent to comply with law of limitation. The scales of justice are always to be balanced and on a careful examination of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the action of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for not condoning such huge, unreasonable and inordinate delay in absence of bonafideness of the assessee falls within the umbrella of justice oriented approach so to clearly spell out that in order to balance scales of justice negligent assessee shall not be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H.
8. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. 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 7 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai to 140/RPR/2026 the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations.
9. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Thirunagalingam Vs. Lingeswaran & Anr., Civil Appeal No.(S)…….of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17575 of 2023] had held while setting aside the impugned order of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras which allowed the civil revision 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.
That any prudent person being aggrieved by the order of the A.O would have immediately filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. In this case, however, the assessee chooses to wait for nearly 10 years and then had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which is a clear case of gross negligence while ascertaining rights and liabilities through the process of law. In view of the aforesaid facts and above referred judicial pronouncements, finding no infirmity with the view taken by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, I uphold the same.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.”
5. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions, on the same parity of reasoning, I hold that any prudent person being aggrieved by the order of the A.O would have immediately filed rectification before the competent authority. In this case, however, the assessee chooses to wait for nearly 9 years and then had filed the rectification way far beyond the time provided u/s. 154(7) of the Act which is a clear case of gross negligence while ascertaining rights and liabilities through the process of law. Therefore, on 8 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai to 140/RPR/2026 the issue of delay itself, even without going into the merits of the matter, I do not find any infirmity with the findings of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which is hereby upheld.
In the result, appeal of the assessee in A.Y.2013-14 is dismissed as per aforesaid terms.
A.Y.2014-15 7. At the very outset, it is noted that the facts and issues raised in the present appeal is identical and similar as were there in for A.Y.2013-14. In this case, there is delay of 24 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal and the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee while not condoning the delay of 9 years by the assessee to move the rectification petition and hence, the appeal was dismissed. Since the facts and circumstances of the appeal in for. A.Y.2014-15 are exactly similar as appearing in for A.Y.2013-14 both on issue of delay in filing appeal before this Bench and also with regard to the fact that Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of assessee due to huge inordinate delay for moving the rectification application as per Section 154(7) of the Act, therefore, my decision rendered in ITA
9 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai to 140/RPR/2026 No.137/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2013-14 shall mutatis mutandis apply in for A.Y.2014-15.
In the result, appeal of the assessee in A.Y.2014-15 is dismissed as per aforesaid terms.
& 139/RPR/2026 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15
Coming to the appeal filed by the assessee in A.Y.2013-14, there is no delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal. At the very outset, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 3548 days i.e. more than 9 years. In other words, the assessee had preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC after waiting for more than 9 years to file such appeal and the First Appellate Authority had dismissed the appeal while not condoning the said huge inordinate delay in filing the said appeal. for A.Y.2014-15, there is no delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, it is discernable from the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC that it had dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay of 3570 days which is more than 9 years (approx.) i.e. 85 days less than 10 years. That means, the 10 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai to 140/RPR/2026 assessee was waiting for almost 10 years for filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC.
11. In both the aforesaid appeals, there is huge inordinate delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and there are no bonafide reasons disclosed, for such, huge inordinate delay. That within the parameters of process of law, the assessee cannot be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong for not complying with the law of limitation and that too creating such huge inordinate delay while pressing its right to file appeal before any Forum. In one of the case before me, there is delay of 9 years and in another case, there is delay of almost 10 years. Therefore, following the ratio laid down in the case of M/s. Gaurav Construction Co. Vs. ITO-1, Korba (supra) for both these appeals and as per dictate of the Hon’ble Apex Court enshrined in the judgments referred therein (supra), following the same parity of reasoning and as per similar terms, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in both these appeals which are hereby upheld.
In the result, appeals of the assessee in & 139/RPR/2026, A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 are dismissed as per aforesaid terms.
11 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai to 140/RPR/2026
To sum up, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 13th day of March, 2026.