Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MANJUNATHA G
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.895/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 SLS Developers, Shamshabad, Ranga The Income Tax Officer, Reddy. PIN – 501 218. vs. Ward-8(1), Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 -084. PAN ACZFS7209L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri P. Vinod, Advocate For Revenue : Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 13.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. :
The above appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 01.08.2024 of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2018-2019.
2 ITA.No.895/Hyd./2025 2. At the very outset, there is a delay of 202 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Assessee has filed affidavit explaining the reasons for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit before the Tribunal, which are as under :
“3. The Appellant firm was into real estate business. Post Covid-19, the Appellant firm did not do any business. The last of the return filed by Appellant was on 22.03.2022 for Ay 2021-22 with NIL Income. As there is no business activity, there is no staff, and the partners have got themselves engaged in their respective businesses. Except for pursuing the income tax proceedings, the partners have charted their own businesses. Our partners never used email for correspondence given the nature of business they are in, but however, one partner Sri Sravan Kumar Aavula was requested to give his email id, and the same was mentioned in the Form 35. The appeal was filed on 03.05.2024 and we gave instructions to our CA Mallikarjun Chatla, to take the appeal forward. We were under bonafide belief that we could receive notice from the ld. NFAC and we can pursue the matter through our CA.
4. Later, in the 2nd week of May 2025, I met our CA for GST work in another business, and informed him that we have not received any notice in the appeal filed. On a request made by me, he checked up the status of appeal on income tax portal, and it is realised that the ld. NFAC has dismissed our appeal on 01.08.2024 for alleged non-prosecution. The CA therefore advised me to meet the present counsel for further course of action. Accordingly, we have consulted the present counsel and 3 ITA.No.895/Hyd./2025 discussed the issue and the consequential action to be taken. I am advised that the only option available is to file appeal to the Hon'ble ITAT. Immediately, we have taken decision to file appeal, and the appeal is prepared on my instructions. Form 36 is generated and the appeal is filed before the Hon'ble Tribunal on 21.05.2025, with a delay of 202 days in filing the appeal.
It is submitted that the delay in filing the appeal is not willful but is for the reasons mentioned above. It is submitted that the partners of the appellant had never used the email in the course of business. Even otherwise given the nature of its business they did, the Appellant did not require email communications and all the communication happened over mobile/phones. Besides this, the partners of the Appellant are not well educated and are not aware of online proceedings, and were under bona fide belief that they would receive notice by speed post as is the case with other government departments. It is submitted that the Appellant did not derive any benefit by filing the appeal belatedly and in fact it is running the risk of appeal being rejected on the ground of delay. It is submitted that if the Hon'ble Tribunal is not pleased to condone the delay of 202 days in filing the appeal, the appellant would be put to irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated by any other means.
In the aforesaid circumstances it is prayed that, the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to condone the delay of 202 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal and decide the same on merits.”
4 ITA.No.895/Hyd./2025 3. Sri P. Vinod, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee referring to the affidavit filed by the assessee submitted that, although, there is a delay of 202 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, but, the said delay is neither intentional nor for want of any undue benefit, but, purely beyond the control of the assessee. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further referring to paras 3 to 5 of the affidavit submitted that, since the appellant does not have any business activity, there is no staff who can attend to income tax matters, and the partners have got themselves engaged in their respective businesses. Except for pursuing the income tax proceedings, the partners have charted their own businesses. Further, one of the partners email-ID was provided for correspondence with the Department. The appeal was filed on 03.05.2024 and we gave instructions to our CA Mallikarjun Chatla, to take the appeal forward. We were under bonafide belief that, we could receive notice from the ld. NFAC and we can pursue the matter through our CA. However, in the 2nd week of May 2025, when the partner met the Chartered Accountant for GST work in another 5 ITA.No.895/Hyd./2025 business, he informed him that, the learned NFAC has dismissed our appeal on 01.08.2024 for alleged non- prosecution. The Chartered Accountant, therefore, advised me to meet the present Counsel for necessary steps to be taken for filing the appeal. In the process, there is a delay of 202 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal should be condoned and appeal filed by the assessee should be admitted for adjudication.
Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR for Revenue, on the other hand strongly opposed for condonation of delay and submitted that, the assessee could not explain reasons for delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal with ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’ and submitted that, the reasons explained by the assessee are general in nature. He, therefore, submitted that, the delay condonation petition filed by the assessee should be dismissed in the interest of justice.
6 ITA.No.895/Hyd./2025 5. We have heard both the parties and considered relevant reasons given for condonation of delay. We find that, reasons explained by the assessee in it’s affidavit for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed date, are vague and general in nature and the assessee has failed to show ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’ for condonation of delay. We further observe that, during the course of assessment proceedings and during the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A) also, the assessee could not substantiate his case by producing necessary documentary evidence as called for. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made the addition which has been sustained by the learned CIT(A). This shows the negligent attitude of the assessee in prosecuting it’s case before the lower authorities. Further, the reasons explained by the assessee for not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the time, are vague and general in nature which shows the lackadaisical approach of the assessee in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Further, the assessee has failed to show ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’ which are beyond the 7 ITA.No.895/Hyd./2025 control of the assessee that are prevented in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed period.
Further, the argument of the appellant that, appeal could not be filed due to the mistake of the Accountant who has taken-up the responsibility of managing the appeal, is not convincing to us going by the conduct of the assessee and facts present before the Tribunal. No doubt, it is an admitted legal position of law from the decision of various Courts including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST. Katiji & Ors. [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) that, generally, the Courts have adopted a very liberal approach in construing the phrase ‘sufficient cause’ used in section 5 of the Limitation Act, in order to condone the delay, to enable the Courts to do substantial justice and apply law in a meaningful manner, which subserves the ends of justice. The Courts further noted that, in adhering the liberal approach in condoning the delay for ‘sufficient cause’ ordinary litigant does not stand benefit by lodging an appeal late and it is not necessary to explain every day’s 8 ITA.No.895/Hyd./2025 delay in filing the appeal and since, sometimes refused to condone the delay, result in thrown out a meritorious matter. Therefore, it is, in the interest of justice that, cause of substantial justice should be allowed to prevail upon technical consideration and if the delay is not deliberate, it should be condoned. Notwithstanding the above, howsoever, liberal approach is adopted in condoning the delay, existence of ‘sufficient cause’ for not filing the appeal in time, is a condition precedent for exercising the discretionary power of the Court to condone the delay. The phrases ‘liberal approach’, ‘justice-oriented approach’ and cause for the advancement of ‘substantial justice’ cannot be employed to defeat the law of limitation so as to allow stale matters or as a matter-of-fact dead matter to be revived and re-opened by taking aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, it must always be borne in mind that, while construing ‘sufficient cause’ in deciding an appeal under section 5 of the Limitation Act, that on the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal, 9 ITA.No.895/Hyd./2025 substantive right in favour of the appellant accrues and this right should not be lightly disturbed.
The law of limitation is founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the legal maxim "interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium" i.e., it is for the general welfare that, the period of limitation be put to litigation. The object is to, put an end to every legal remedy and to have a fixed period of life for every litigation as it is futile to keep any litigation or dispute pending indefinitely. Every public policy requires that, there should be an end to the litigation, otherwise, it would be a dichotomy, if the litigant is made immortal vis-a-vis the right in parties i.e., human being were mortals. Therefore, considering the importance of limitation provide under the statutes must be understand in this context. The Income Tax Act, 1961 provided for limitation for filing appeals before various authorities including the Tribunal. Further, the Act has also provided a discretionary power to the Authorities for condoning the delay, if ‘sufficient cause’ is made out with reasonable explanation. Therefore, while condoning the delay, the Authorities must keep in mind the 10 ITA.No.895/Hyd./2025 importance of limitation provided under various statutes and the discretionary power conferred by the said statute keeping in mind the phrase ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’.
In the present case, going by the affidavit filed by the assessee for explaining the reasons, the assessee claims that, it could not file the appeal due to the mistake of the Accountant who has taken-up the responsibility of managing and filing of the appeal. In our considered view, the reason given by the assessee is vague and general in nature, without any substance and failed to take timely steps to file the appeal before the Tribunal and, therefore, the argument of the assessee that due to the above reason, the appeal before the Tribunal could not be filed within the time, is not acceptable. Further, in our considered view, the ‘sufficient cause’ for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act is, a cause that prevents an appellant from filing the appeal or application within the prescribed time limit and is beyond their control and not due to negligent or inaction. In the present case, going by the facts 11 ITA.No.895/Hyd./2025 available on record, it is purely on account of inaction or negligence of the assessee appeal could not be filed within the time allowed under the Act and this fact is further strengthened by the conduct of the assessee before the authorities below where the assessee did not appeared before the learned CIT(A) when the case was listed for hearing. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the reasons given by the assessee for the delay in filling of the appeal, does not come under ‘sufficient cause’ and for this reason, the delay of 202 days in filing appeal cannot be condoned.
At this stage, it is relevant to consider the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subbareddy (died) reptd. by his L.Rs & Ors. vs., The Special Deputy Collector-(LA) in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31248 of 2018 vide order dated 08.04.2024 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the provisions of sec.3(1) Secs.4 to 24 of the Limitation Act has refused to condone the delay and dismissed the SLP filed by the assessee and uphold the 12 ITA.No.895/Hyd./2025 order of the Hon’ble High Court Andhra Pradesh High Court in dismissing the appeal on account of delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP, after considering the various judicial precedents on the subject matter of condonation of delay, noted that, “where a litigant could not explain the ‘sufficient cause’ which means adequate, enough reasons which prevented him to approach the Court within the period of limitation and could not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained the delay to the Court/Tribunal, Court’s has no power to condone such delays”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further noted that, “the statutory provisions under Limitation Act may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party, but, the Court has no choice, but, to enforce it giving full effect to the same by quoting the legal maxim dura lex sed lex which means “the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted when there were negligence/failure to exercise due diligence etc., and accordingly dismissed the SLP of the appellants in the aforesaid case”. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court yet in an another 13 ITA.No.895/Hyd./2025 case Balwant Singh (Dead) vs., Jagdish Singh & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.1166/2006 reported in [2010] 8 SCC 685 in para-16 very clearly held as under :
16. Above are the principles which should control the exercise of judicial discretion vested in the Court under these provisions. The explained delay should be clearly understood in contradistinction to inordinate unexplained delay. Delay is just one of the ingredients which has to be considered by the Court. In addition to this, the Court must also take into account the conduct of the parties, bona fide reasons for condonation of delay and whether such delay could easily be avoided by the applicant acting with normal care and caution. The statutory provisions mandate that applications for condonation of delay and applications belatedly filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation for bringing the legal representatives on record, should be rejected unless sufficient cause is shown for condonation of delay. The larger benches as well as equi-benches of this Court have consistently followed these principles and have either allowed or declined to condone the delay in filing such applications. Thus, it is the requirement of law that these applications cannot be allowed as a matter of right and even in a routine manner. An applicant must essentially satisfy the above stated ingredients; then alone the Court would be inclined to condone the delay in the filing of such applications.
14 ITA.No.895/Hyd./2025 10. In the present case, admittedly, the assessee has not filed his return of income for the year under consideration, even though, it has made huge investment in purchase of lands. Further, the assessee neither explained the case with relevant evidences nor explained the source for acquisition of immovable property before the Assessing Officer which is evident from the observation of the Assessing Officer, where the assessee has furnished partial information in respect of investment in immovable property, but, could not explain the credits in the bank account. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee did not appear despite issue of notices on four occasions. Further, once again the assessee has shown negligence in filing appeal before the Tribunal which is evident from delay of 202 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. From the conduct of the assessee right from filing of the return of income to the filing of appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee has shown negligence. Therefore, from the above conduct of the assessee, it 15 ITA.No.895/Hyd./2025 appears that, the reasons given for delay in filing of the appeal in their affidavit dated 06.08.2025 is not bonafide. As we have already stated in earlier part of this order that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh (Dead) vs., Jagdish Singh & Ors. (supra), has clearly held that, Court must also take into account conduct of the parties, bonafide reasons for condonation of delay, whether such day could easily be avoided by the applicant acting with normal care and caution. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, the appellant could have avoided the delay in filing of the appeal had it been shown little care and caution in the income tax matters. Since the appellant has shown casual approach and negligence in pursuing their case before the Authorities including filing appeal before the Tribunal, in our considered view, the reasons given by the appellant for delay in filing of the appeal cannot be condoned for the said reasons.
16 ITA.No.895/Hyd./2025 11. In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that, the assessee has failed to explain delay and the circumstances beyond the control of the assessee in not filing the appeal before the Tribunal within the prescribed period with ‘sufficient and reasonable cause’. Therefore, by respectfully following the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pathapati Subbareddy (died) reptd. by his L.Rs & Ors. vs., The Special Deputy Collector-(LA) (supra) and also the decision of Balwant Singh (Dead) vs., Jagdish Singh & Ors. (supra), we are disinclined to condone the delay of 202 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine as un-admitted.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine.
17 ITA.No.895/Hyd./2025 Order pronounced in the open Court on 20.08.2025.