ANIL KUMAR DUNDOO,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT., CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any objection to the condonation of delay.

We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the condonation petition along with the affidavit placed on record. The reasons explained by the assessee clearly establish Page 2 of 12 that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. The delay has occurred only on account of a bona fide procedural misunderstanding while dealing with the defects pointed out by the Registry. In our view, such a technical lapse should not come in the way of substantive justice. Further, since the Revenue has not raised any serious objection to the condonation, we are satisfied that the assessee has shown sufficient cause for the delay of 16 days in filing the present appeal. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is the proprietor of M/s. Mustang Services and is engaged in the trading Page 4 of 12 of diamonds and bullion. The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 04.11.2017 admitting a total income of Rs.49,59,100/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS and accordingly notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 09.08.2018 was issued by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”). After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs.27,62,580/- under the head “income from business or profession” and completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 28.12.2019 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.77,21,680/-.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). There was, however, a delay of 2247 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Before us, the assessee filed an affidavit placed at page nos. 20 to 22 of the paper-book explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) and seeking condonation, which is to the following effect:

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessment order was passed by the Ld. AO on 28.12.2019 and therefore the limitation for filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) expired on 27.01.2020. However, the appeal came to be filed only on 24.03.2025, resulting in a delay of 2247 days. The Ld. AR submitted that the initial portion of the delay occurred due to the severe health issues of the assessee, who was suffering from serious joint pain, swelling in his legs and was diagnosed with hyper-uricemia requiring continuous medical treatment. The assessee was later diagnosed Page 8 of 12 with COVID-19 during the second wave of the pandemic and was admitted to hospital from 26.11.2020 to 30.11.2020. It was submitted that the assessee required prolonged medical recovery and rehabilitation thereafter. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ (Civil) proceedings had extended the period of limitation up to 28.02.2022. Therefore, if the COVID-19 exclusion is applied, the effective delay would stand reduced to 1120 days. It was further submitted that after the COVID period, the assessee could not file the appeal due to negligence of his tax consultants. The assessee had entrusted the tax matters to his Chartered Accountant, who neither filed the appeal on time nor kept the assessee informed about the status of the filing of the appeal. Owing to the negligence of the earlier Chartered Accountant, the assessee changed his tax advisor and engaged another Chartered Accountant on 01.10.2020. However, even the subsequent Chartered Accountant failed to file the appeal in time, stating that the matter required further time. The assessee acted in good faith relying on the professional advice given to him. It was submitted that only when the assessee discussed the matter with a knowledgeable friend, the omission came to his notice and thereafter the appeal was immediately filed. It was strongly urged that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and that the assessee had a strong case on merits. The Ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.11794 of 2025, wherein it was held that the quantum of delay is not the determinative factor and that what is material is the sufficiency of cause shown.

Per contra, the Ld. DR opposed the condonation of delay and submitted that the delay of 2247 days is inordinate and wholly unexplained. It was submitted that the medical condition of the assessee is not of such nature that it could have prevented him from filing the appeal for an extended period of more than six years. With respect to the contention regarding extension of limitation by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Ld. DR submitted that such benefit was available only for cases where the limitation expired within the period covered by the Supreme Court’s directions i.e. within 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. In the present case, the limitation expired on 27.01.2020, much prior to the cut- off date. Hence, the benefit of COVID-19 exclusion cannot be extended to the assessee. The Ld. DR further submitted that even after excluding the COVID-19 period, the delay of 1120 days remains unexplained. The assessee’s plea that both the Chartered Accountants misadvised him and failed to file the appeal is not substantiated by any affidavit from the said Chartered Accountants. In the absence of corresponding affidavits, such a plea cannot be accepted. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jharkhand Urja Utpadan Nigam Ltd. & Anr. vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd in petition for Special Leave to appeal (c) No.9580/2025, P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala & Anr. Dated 19.09.1997, the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Vama Apparels India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (102 Taxamnn.com 398) and the order of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Matrix Sea Foods India Ltd. vs. ACIT, dated 23.02.2023, to contend that inordinate and unexplained delay cannot be condoned.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and gone through the affidavit and documents placed on record including the case law relied on. The delay of 2247 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) is undeniably substantial and requires cogent justification. The reasons advanced by the assessee regarding his medical condition, COVID-19 infection and recovery cannot persuade us to accept that such circumstances disabled him from filing an appeal for more than six years. Further, the extension of limitation granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is not applicable to the assessee, since the assessee’s limitation expired on 27.01.2020, which is prior to the period covered by the Supreme Court’s directions i.e. 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. Even if we exclude the period of delay covered by the Supreme Court’s directions, there remains a further inordinate delay of 1120 days. The assessee’s plea regarding professional negligence also remains unsupported by any affidavit from the Chartered Accountants concerned. In the absence of corroboration, such an explanation cannot be treated as sufficient cause. The balance period of delay of 1120 days remains wholly unexplained. The settled law is that while liberal interpretation is permissible, delay cannot be condoned merely on equitable grounds without adequate explanation. The reliance of the assessee on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (Dead) by Lrs vs. Karnataka Housing Board and Ors.(Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case as no sufficient cause qua the inordinate delay has been substantiated by the assessee with any documentary evidence. In view of the above discussion, we find no infirmity in the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in declining to condone the delay of 2247 days. We Page 11 of 12 accordingly uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

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