Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order dated 30.09.2021 with an inordinate delay of 1273 days, claiming non-receipt of the order until 02.05.2025. The Departmental Representative argued that the assessee had previously received hearing notices and filed submissions, implying awareness of the proceedings and the order.
Held
The Tribunal found no sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay of 1273 days in filing the appeal, stating that the assessee's reasons lacked *bona fide*. Consequently, the petition for condonation of delay was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.
Key Issues
Whether there was sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1273 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
Sections Cited
250, 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi&
Year: 2018-19 Techsol Engineering Services (India) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Private Limited, 1st Floor, No. 83, Corporate Ward 3(1), Sapthagiri Apartments, TTK Road, Chennai. Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018. [PAN:AADCT1863A] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Ranjit Singh, Advocate ��थ� की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 13.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19.
We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 1273 days. The assessee filed petition accompanied by notarized affidavit by giving explanation to condone the delay.
The ld. AR Shri Ranjit Singh drew our attention to para 3 of the affidavit and submits that the assessee came to know the passing of impugned order only on receiving e-mail from Demand Facilitation Centre on 02.05.2025 and he argued promptly becoming aware of the said passing of impugned order, the assessee filed present appeal by paying balance tax. He argued that the delay is due to lack of communication, but, not deliberate as the assessee always being complied and prompt upon awareness. He prayed to condone the delay.
The ld. DR Shri R.V. Aroon Prasad, Addl. CIT submits that the assessee failed to show sufficient cause in explaining the delay of 1273 days. He drew our attention to first para of the impugned order and submits that the hearing notice sent to the assessee on 21.01.2021 and the assessee in response, submissions were filed on ITBA. He drew our attention to the screenshot of mail giving the details of mails received from CPC during the month of September, 2021 placed at page 77 of the appeal memo on the count that the assessee has not received the impugned order cannot be acceptable. Since the assessee has miserably failed to explain the reasonable cause for the inordinate delay of 1273 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the ld. DR prayed to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee as not maintainable.
5. Heard both the parties and perused the petition for condonation of delay of 1273 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and for better understanding, the reasons stated in the petition are reproduced herein below:
1. 1. The order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2018-19 was passed by NFAC, Delhi on 30.09.2021. However, the appellant did not receive any intimation/email/communication of the said order.
2. The appellant was under the bona fide impression that the appeal was still pending, and no final order was passed.
3. It is also pertinent to mention that the appellant has a consistent track record of responding to departmental communications without delay. In fact, upon receipt of the demand notice under section 143(1), the appellant promptly filed a stay petition before the Assessing Officer, Corporate Ward 3(1), Chennai 34, and voluntarily paid 20% of the disputed demand amounting to Rs. 1,15,368/- vide challan no. 50424 dated 09.01.2020. The stay was subsequently granted by the department on 19.03.2020 vide order bearing DIN: ITBA/COM/F/17/2019-20/1026780085(1). This clearly evidences that the appellant is proactive and compliant in attending to notices and directions from the department whenever such orders or communications are duly served. The delay in the present case has occurred solely due to the non-receipt of the CIT(A)'s order dated 30.09.2021, and not due to any negligence or lack of diligence on the part of the appellant.
4. The fact of disposal came to light only upon receiving communication from the Demand Facilitation Centre dated 02.05.2025, bearing DIN: CPC/2025/DMPRC/000009978179, which mentioned an outstanding demand.
The appellant immediately took steps by downloading the said order, depositing the entire demand with interest (challan enclosed), and is now filing this appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal.
The delay in filing this appeal is due to non-receipt of intimation. There is no wilful default or negligence.
7. The appellant encloses the following evidence in support: a. Screenshot of E-mail covering the dates between 30.09.2021 to 15.10.2021, b. Copy of the DIN-based demand communication, c. Proof of tax payment post discovery of order.
8. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [(1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC)], substantial justice should not be defeated by technical delays. 6. On perusal of the above statements made in the petition for condonation of delay, the only reason emanating from the petition is that the impugned order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the first appellate authority has not been received by the assessee till receiving communication from the Demand Facilitation Centre dated 02.05.2025, is not acceptable for the reason that the first appellate authority issued hearing notice on 21.01.2021 and the assessee in response, submissions were filed on ITBA. When the assessee received the hearing notice from the first appellate authority, the impugned order should have been mailed to the registered e-mail ID of the assessee.
We find time and again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reminded that the concept of “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” should not be employed to frustrate or jettison the substantial law of limitation. Having keeping in mind, we find in the present case, the length of delay is definitely a relevant matter that this Tribunal must take into consideration while considering the reasons explained in the petition for condonation of delay as well as arguments of the ld. AR and the ld. DR before us. It is an established principle where an appeal presented with abnormal delay, beyond limitation, the assessee has to explain as to what is the reasonable cause, which really prevented the assessee to approach this Tribunal within the time. As discussed above, we find no sufficient cause is given by the assessee for the delay of 1273 days in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, since the assessee failed to give sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time, we hold that the assessee’s reasons for the inordinate delay cannot be interpreted liberally, therefore, due to lack of bonafide, the petition for condonation of delay filed by the assessee is rejected and the appeal filed with a delay of 1273 days is not maintainable and dismiss the appeal accordingly. In view of rejection of petition for condonation of delay, the grounds raised in Form 36 on merits become academic and accordingly dismissed as infructuous.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 14th November, 2025 at Chennai.