NOBEL BIOCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 15(2)(1), MUMBAI

Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. No. 6880 & 6881/MUM/2025 2.1 The central issue for adjudication is whether an item of The central issue for adjudication is whether an item of The central issue for adjudication is whether an item of income, erroneously offered to tax by the assessee by way of income, erroneously offered to tax by the assessee by way of income, erroneously offered to tax by the assessee by way of reversal of provisions, can be taxed twice reversal of provisions, can be taxed twice—first at the first at the time of creation (by way of disallowance) and second at the time of creation (by way of disallowance) and second at the time of creation (by way of disallowance) and second at the time of reversal—thereby violating the mandate of Article 265 of the thereby violating the mandate of Article 265 of the thereby violating the mandate of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. Constitution of India.

2.2 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee was the assessee was incorporated in December 2004 as a w incorporated in December 2004 as a wholly owned subsidiary of holly owned subsidiary of Nobel Biocare Asia- -Africa Holding AG (“NBH”) for undertaking Africa Holding AG (“NBH”) for undertaking wholesale trading of NBH’s dental products and solutions in India, wholesale trading of NBH’s dental products and solutions in India, wholesale trading of NBH’s dental products and solutions in India, as well as for providing marketing, pre as well as for providing marketing, pre-sale and after sale and after-sale support, and training to customers in Indi and training to customers in India.

2.3 For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee For the assessment year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 29.11.2013 declaring a total income of filed its return of income on 29.11.2013 declaring a total income of filed its return of income on 29.11.2013 declaring a total income of ₹2,45,32,000/- under the normal provisions of the Income under the normal provisions of the Income under the normal provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and book profit of 1961 (“the Act”) and book profit of ₹1,31,81,815/- - under section 115JB of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and 115JB of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and 115JB of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on assessment under section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the 14.03.2016 without making any addition or adjustment to the returned income.

2.4 For the Assessment Year (AY) 2012 For the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, the assessee created a assessee created a provision for obsolete inventory (Rs. 1,05,44,507/-) and sales provision for obsolete inventory (Rs. 1,05,44,507/ provision for obsolete inventory (Rs. 1,05,44,507/ returns (Rs. 39,00,000/ returns (Rs. 39,00,000/-) claimed to be made on a scientific basis. ) claimed to be made on a scientific basis.

Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. No. 6880 & 6881/MUM/2025 2.5 In the subsequent year under consideration (AY 2013 In the subsequent year under consideration (AY 2013 In the subsequent year under consideration (AY 2013-14), the assessee suo motu reversed those provisio reversed those provisions and offered the same ns and offered the same to tax, believing the prior year's claim would be allowed. However, to tax, believing the prior year's claim would be allowed. However, to tax, believing the prior year's claim would be allowed. However, in the scrutiny assessment for AY 2012 in the scrutiny assessment for AY 2012-13, which were concluded 13, which were concluded on 16/03/2016 ( i.e. two days after squinty proceedings for year on 16/03/2016 ( i.e. two days after squinty proceedings for year on 16/03/2016 ( i.e. two days after squinty proceedings for year under consideration were competed) under consideration were competed) the Assessing Officer (AO) the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed disallowed disallowed the the the deduction deduction deduction for for for those those those provisions, provisions, provisions, an an an action action action subsequently upheld by this Tribunal. Consequently, the same subsequently upheld by this Tribunal. Consequently, the same subsequently upheld by this Tribunal. Consequently, the same amounts were added to the total income in AY 2012 amounts were added to the total income in AY 2012- -13.

2.6 In view of the above, the assessee preferred an app In view of the above, the assessee preferred an app In view of the above, the assessee preferred an appeal for the year under consideration and claimed that the income offered to tax year under consideration and claimed that the income offered to tax year under consideration and claimed that the income offered to tax on account of reversal of the aforesaid provisions ought to be on account of reversal of the aforesaid provisions ought to be on account of reversal of the aforesaid provisions ought to be reduced, as the same had already suffered tax in assessment year reduced, as the same had already suffered tax in assessment year reduced, as the same had already suffered tax in assessment year 2012-13. The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the c 13. The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the claim on the ground laim on the ground that the assessee had not made such claim by filing a revised that the assessee had not made such claim by filing a revised that the assessee had not made such claim by filing a revised return and held that no relief could be granted in appellate return and held that no relief could be granted in appellate return and held that no relief could be granted in appellate proceedings. The relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) have been proceedings. The relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) have been proceedings. The relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) have been reproduced as under: as under:

“6.1 On Grounds of Appeal 1 & 6.1 On Grounds of Appeal 1 & 2:- I have have perused the I have have perused the assessment order, written submissions, relevant appellate records, assessment order, written submissions, relevant appellate records, assessment order, written submissions, relevant appellate records, and judicial precedents. The ITAT order cited by the appellant is for and judicial precedents. The ITAT order cited by the appellant is for and judicial precedents. The ITAT order cited by the appellant is for the year Assessment Year 2012 the year Assessment Year 2012-13 and not for the year for which 13 and not for the year for which appeal is filed. It is seen appeal is filed. It is seen from the records that the amounts in from the records that the amounts in question were suo moto offered to tax by the Appellant in its return question were suo moto offered to tax by the Appellant in its return question were suo moto offered to tax by the Appellant in its return of income for AY 2013 of income for AY 2013-14, The AO has accepted the return as it is. 14, The AO has accepted the return as it is. There is no addition made by the AO regarding these amounts. The There is no addition made by the AO regarding these amounts. The There is no addition made by the AO regarding these amounts. The fact remains that fact remains that no such deduction was claimed in the return of no such deduction was claimed in the return of income, nor was it disallowed by the AO during assessment. The income, nor was it disallowed by the AO during assessment. The income, nor was it disallowed by the AO during assessment. The amounts were suo moto offered to tax by the Appellant and have amounts were suo moto offered to tax by the Appellant and have amounts were suo moto offered to tax by the Appellant and have Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. No. 6880 & 6881/MUM/2025 been accepted by the AO. Further, the appellate authority cannot been accepted by the AO. Further, the appellate authority cannot been accepted by the AO. Further, the appellate authority cannot consider or allow consider or allow fresh claims that were not made in the return of fresh claims that were not made in the return of income or during the assessment proceedings, unless supported by income or during the assessment proceedings, unless supported by income or during the assessment proceedings, unless supported by a revised return. The Appellant has not filed a revised return in this a revised return. The Appellant has not filed a revised return in this a revised return. The Appellant has not filed a revised return in this case. In view of the above facts and legal position, the appeal filed case. In view of the above facts and legal position, the appeal filed case. In view of the above facts and legal position, the appeal filed by the Appellant is dismissed, as the Assessing Officer has merely by the Appellant is dismissed, as the Assessing Officer has merely by the Appellant is dismissed, as the Assessing Officer has merely accepted the suo moto declaration made by the Appellant, and no accepted the suo moto declaration made by the Appellant, and no accepted the suo moto declaration made by the Appellant, and no disallowance or adjustment has been made in the assessment order disallowance or adjustment has been made in the assessment order disallowance or adjustment has been made in the assessment order which can be the subject matter of this appeal. Accordingly, which can be the subject matter of this appeal. Accordingly, which can be the subject matter of this appeal. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal stands dismissed. grounds of appeal stands dismissed.”

3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the provisions The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the provisions The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the provisions for obsolete and non for obsolete and non-moving inventory and sales return were moving inventory and sales return were originally claimed as deduction in assessment year 2012-13, but originally claimed as deduction in assessment year 2012 originally claimed as deduction in assessment year 2012 were disallowed by the A were disallowed by the Assessing Officer and such disallowance has ssessing Officer and such disallowance has attained finality with the order of the Tribunal dated 03.09.2019. attained finality with the order of the Tribunal dated 03.09.2019. attained finality with the order of the Tribunal dated 03.09.2019. Since the assessee had already offered the reversal of those Since the assessee had already offered the reversal of those Since the assessee had already offered the reversal of those provisions to tax in assessment year 2013 provisions to tax in assessment year 2013-14 before the 14 before the disallowance was made in asse disallowance was made in assessment year 2012-13, the same has 13, the same has resulted in double taxation of the very same income. resulted in double taxation of the very same income. resulted in double taxation of the very same income.

3.1 It was contended that once the provisions have been It was contended that once the provisions have been It was contended that once the provisions have been disallowed and taxed in assessment year 2012 disallowed and taxed in assessment year 2012-13, the reversal 13, the reversal thereof cannot again be subjected to tax in assessment year 2013- thereof cannot again be subjected to tax in assessm thereof cannot again be subjected to tax in assessm 14, as such double taxation is impermissible in law. It was further 14, as such double taxation is impermissible in law. It was further 14, as such double taxation is impermissible in law. It was further submitted that it is a settled position that the Assessing Officer is submitted that it is a settled position that the Assessing Officer is submitted that it is a settled position that the Assessing Officer is obliged to compute the correct taxable income in accordance with obliged to compute the correct taxable income in accordance with obliged to compute the correct taxable income in accordance with law and a mistake or omission on the pa law and a mistake or omission on the part of the assessee in rt of the assessee in offering income cannot justify levy or collection of tax without offering income cannot justify levy or collection of tax without offering income cannot justify levy or collection of tax without

Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. No. 6880 & 6881/MUM/2025 authority of law, having regard to Article 265 of the Constitution of authority of law, having regard to Article 265 of the Constitution of authority of law, having regard to Article 265 of the Constitution of India.

3.2 Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Bharat Alu CIT v. Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. (303 ITR 256) minium Co. Ltd. (303 ITR 256), as well as on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT as on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in as on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 336), v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 336) v. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. (349 ITR 336) wherein it has been held that an assessee is entitled to raise wherein it has been held that an assessee is entitled to raise wherein it has been held that an assessee is entitled to raise additional claims before app additional claims before appellate authorities even if such claims ellate authorities even if such claims were not made in the return of income or by filing a revised return. were not made in the return of income or by filing a revised return. were not made in the return of income or by filing a revised return.

4.1 The reversal was made by the assessee in the normal course, The reversal was made by the assessee in the normal course, The reversal was made by the assessee in the normal course, before the disallowance was finally determined in assessment year before the disallowance was finally determined in assessment year before the disallowance was finally determined in assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the 13. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the 13. Therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee for having offered the amount to tax at that stage. To deny assessee for having offered the amount to tax at that stage. To assessee for having offered the amount to tax at that stage. To Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. No. 6880 & 6881/MUM/2025 withdrawal of such reversal would result in taxing the same income withdrawal of such reversal would result in taxing the same income withdrawal of such reversal would result in taxing the same income twice, which is clearly impermissible under the scheme of the Act. twice, which is clearly impermissible under the scheme of the Act. twice, which is clearly impermissible under the scheme of the Act.

4.2 The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's claim on a narrow he Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's claim on a narrow he Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's claim on a narrow technical ground, holding that since the income was voluntarily technical ground, holding that since the income was vol technical ground, holding that since the income was vol offered in the return and no revised return was filed, the appellate offered in the return and no revised return was filed, the appellate offered in the return and no revised return was filed, the appellate authority lacked the jurisdiction to grant relief. The Ld. CIT(A) relied authority lacked the jurisdiction to grant relief. The Ld. CIT(A) relied authority lacked the jurisdiction to grant relief. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on the principle that an assessment which merely accepts a suo on the principle that an assessment which merely accepts a on the principle that an assessment which merely accepts a motu declaration does not constitute a "gr declaration does not constitute a "grievance" appealable under ievance" appealable under the Act.

4.3 The objection of the Ld. CIT(A) that the claim could not be he objection of the Ld. CIT(A) that the claim could not be he objection of the Ld. CIT(A) that the claim could not be entertained in the absence of a revised return is contrary to the entertained in the absence of a revised return is contrary to the entertained in the absence of a revised return is contrary to the settled legal position that appellate authorities are empowered to settled legal position that appellate authorities are empowered to settled legal position that appellate authorities are empowered to consider and allow legit consider and allow legitimate claims to determine the correct imate claims to determine the correct taxable income, notwithstanding the absence of a revised return. taxable income, notwithstanding the absence of a revised return. taxable income, notwithstanding the absence of a revised return. While the AO's power may be limited by the rule in Goetze (India) While the AO's power may be limited by the rule in While the AO's power may be limited by the rule in Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), the powers of the Appellate , the powers of the Appellate Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) Authorities are co-ext extensive with those of the AO and are not ensive with those of the AO and are not restricted by the absence of a revised return. restricted by the absence of a revised return.

4.4 We draw We draw We draw strength from the decision of the Hon’ble strength from the decision of strength from the decision of the Hon’ble the Hon’ble CIT CIT v. v. Pruthvi Pruthvi Brokers Brokers & & Jurisdictional Jurisdictional High High Court Court in in Shareholders (2012) 349 ITR 336 Shareholders (2012) 349 ITR 336, which categorically held tha , which categorically held that appellate authorities have the jurisdiction to consider additional appellate authorities have the jurisdiction to consider additional appellate authorities have the jurisdiction to consider additional claims not made in the return if the facts are available on record. claims not made in the return if the facts are available on record. claims not made in the return if the facts are available on record.

Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. No. 6880 & 6881/MUM/2025 4.5 It is well-settled that there is settled that there is no estoppel against law no estoppel against law and that tax can be levied and collected only in accordance with law. An tax can be levied and collected only in accordance with law. An tax can be levied and collected only in accordance with law. An erroneous inclusion of income by an assessee cannot confer erroneous inclusion of income by an assessee cannot confer erroneous inclusion of income by an assessee cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Revenue to collect tax which is otherwise not jurisdiction upon the Revenue to collect tax which is otherwise not jurisdiction upon the Revenue to collect tax which is otherwise not legally due. The state cannot benefit from an assessee' The state cannot benefit from an assessee' The state cannot benefit from an assessee's bonafide error. If a provision is disallowed at the time of its creation, its error. If a provision is disallowed at the time of its creation, its error. If a provision is disallowed at the time of its creation, its subsequent reversal cannot be treated as income again. To do so subsequent reversal cannot be treated as income again. To do so subsequent reversal cannot be treated as income again. To do so would result in taxing a fictional surplus. The Revenue’s argument would result in taxing a fictional surplus. The Revenue’s argument would result in taxing a fictional surplus. The Revenue’s argument that the assessee is "bound" by its original that the assessee is "bound" by its original return ignores the fact return ignores the fact that the primary duty of the AO is to determine the correct tax that the primary duty of the AO is to determine the correct tax that the primary duty of the AO is to determine the correct tax liability in accordance with the law, not to capitalize on an liability in accordance with the law, not to capitalize on an liability in accordance with the law, not to capitalize on an assessee’s mistake.

4.6 In view of the foregoing discussion In view of the foregoing discussion, we set aside the order of we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to grant his issue and direct the Assessing Officer to grant his issue and direct the Assessing Officer to grant relief to the assessee by allowing withdrawal of the income offered relief to the assessee by allowing withdrawal of the income offered relief to the assessee by allowing withdrawal of the income offered on account of reversal of the provisions for obsolete and non- on account of reversal of the provisions for obsolete and non on account of reversal of the provisions for obsolete and non moving inventory and sales return. moving inventory and sales return.

4.7 Accordingly, we set aside the order Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the issue in dispute and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the issue in dispute and direct the Assessing Officer to allow the withdrawal of the reversal of such claim. withdrawal of the reversal of such claim. The ground of appeal of The ground of appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed. the assessee are accordingly allowed.

Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. No. 6880 & 6881/MUM/2025

Ground no. 1: Ground no. 1: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] has erred in learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] has erred in learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT(A)'] has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal, without appreciating ing the delay in filing the appeal, without appreciating ing the delay in filing the appeal, without appreciating the existence of sufficient and reasonable cause for such delay, the existence of sufficient and reasonable cause for such delay, the existence of sufficient and reasonable cause for such delay, while passing the order under section 250 of the Income while passing the order under section 250 of the Income while passing the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act'). 1961 ('IT Act'). The Appellant prays that the delay in filing the app The Appellant prays that the delay in filing the appeal may kindly eal may kindly be condoned.

Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. No. 6880 & 6881/MUM/2025 The Appellant, therefore, prays that the addition on acc The Appellant, therefore, prays that the addition on acc The Appellant, therefore, prays that the addition on account of disallowance of bonus expense under section 43B of the IT Act be disallowance of bonus expense under section 43B of the IT Act be disallowance of bonus expense under section 43B of the IT Act be deleted.

section 234F of the IT Act although the return of income was filed section 234F of the IT Act although the return of income was filed section 234F of the IT Act although the return of income was filed within the due date by the Appellant. within the due date by the Appellant. The Appellant p The Appellant prays that the aforesaid fee under section 234F of rays that the aforesaid fee under section 234F of the IT Act ought to be deleted. the IT Act ought to be deleted. 5.1 We note that the Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the appeal of the We note that the Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the appeal of the We note that the Ld. CIT(A) disallowed the appeal of the assessee rejecting the application for condonation of the delay. The assessee rejecting the application for condonation of the delay. assessee rejecting the application for condonation of the delay. Ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay, inv Ld. CIT(A) refused to condone the delay, invoking the maxim oking the maxim "Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt" "Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt" (Law assists the (Law assists the vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights). The Ld. CIT(A) vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights). The Ld. CIT(A) vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights). The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee remained "passive and inactive" for observed that the assessee remained "passive and inactive" for observed that the assessee remained "passive and inactive" for nearly 1,000 days following the Intimation unde nearly 1,000 days following the Intimation under Section 143(1) r Section 143(1) issued on 20.12.2021. Relying on various precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) issued on 20.12.2021. Relying on various precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) issued on 20.12.2021. Relying on various precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) concluded that "sufficient cause" was absent and that the law of concluded that "sufficient cause" was absent and that the law of concluded that "sufficient cause" was absent and that the law of limitation must be applied with its full rigour to prevent "perpetual limitation must be applied with its full rigour to prevent "perpetual limitation must be applied with its full rigour to prevent "perpetual uncertainty." The relevant finding The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:

5.3 The Appellant has argued that it was under a "bonafide belief" 5.3 The Appellant has argued that it was under a "bonafide belief" 5.3 The Appellant has argued that it was under a "bonafide belief" that the issue could be adjudicated by the Hon'ble DRP. However, that the issue could be adjudicated by the Hon'ble DRP. However, that the issue could be adjudicated by the Hon'ble DRP. However, the law is well the law is well-settled that ignorance or mistaken interpretation of settled that ignorance or mistaken interpretation of law does not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 5.4 The Appellant has tried to portray that it was diligent and had 5.4 The Appellant has tried to portray that it was diligent and had 5.4 The Appellant has tried to portray that it was diligent and had no mala fide intention. However, the chronology of events shows no mala fide intention. However, the chronology of events shows no mala fide intention. However, the chronology of events shows otherwise:  Intimation under section 143(1) was issued on 20 December Intimation under section 143(1) was issued on 20 December Intimation under section 143(1) was issued on 20 December 2021;  Statutory appeal period expired on 19 January 2022; Statutory appeal period expired on 19 January 2022; Statutory appeal period expired on 19 January 2022;  The Appellant did not file appeal before the CIT(A) within The Appellant did not file appeal before the CIT(A) within The Appellant did not file appeal before the CIT(A) within time, nor did it seek condonation promptly thereafter; time, nor did it seek condonation promptly thereafter; time, nor did it seek condonation promptly thereafter;  Instead, it waited until July 2024 (almost 1,000 days later) Instead, it waited until July 2024 (almost 1,000 days later) Instead, it waited until July 2024 (almost 1,000 days later) after the final order to after the final order to approach the CIT(A).

Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. No. 6880 & 6881/MUM/2025

5.5 Perusal of the above submission and facts of the case clearly 5.5 Perusal of the above submission and facts of the case clearly 5.5 Perusal of the above submission and facts of the case clearly shows the inaction and passiveness of the appellant in discharging shows the inaction and passiveness of the appellant in discharging shows the inaction and passiveness of the appellant in discharging the statutory responsibility. This fact shows the inaction and casual the statutory responsibility. This fact shows the inaction and casual the statutory responsibility. This fact shows the inaction and casual attitude of the appellant attitude of the appellant towards filing of appeal as the appeal was towards filing of appeal as the appeal was filed on 11-10 10-2024, after a lapse of 996 days. This shows that it is 2024, after a lapse of 996 days. This shows that it is clearly a lapse on the part of the appellant and cannot be clearly a lapse on the part of the appellant and cannot be clearly a lapse on the part of the appellant and cannot be considered as bonafide and reasonable cause for delay of 996 days considered as bonafide and reasonable cause for delay of 996 days considered as bonafide and reasonable cause for delay of 996 days in filing the appe in filing the appeal. It is settled law that delay of each day is to be al. It is settled law that delay of each day is to be explained by the appellant. In view of these facts, it is clear that the explained by the appellant. In view of these facts, it is clear that the explained by the appellant. In view of these facts, it is clear that the appellant has failed to explain that it was having sufficient cause appellant has failed to explain that it was having sufficient cause appellant has failed to explain that it was having sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. The Appellant has relied o for not filing the appeal in time. The Appellant has relied o for not filing the appeal in time. The Appellant has relied on Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag v. Katiji (167 ITR 471). While Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag v. Katiji (167 ITR 471). While Collector, Land Acquisition Anantnag v. Katiji (167 ITR 471). While the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that liberal interpretation the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that liberal interpretation the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that liberal interpretation should be given in condonation matters, it has also clarified in should be given in condonation matters, it has also clarified in should be given in condonation matters, it has also clarified in numerous other judgments (e.g., P.K. Ramachandran v. State numerous other judgments (e.g., P.K. Ramachandran v. State numerous other judgments (e.g., P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556) that law of limitation must be applied Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556) that law of limitation must be applied Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556) that law of limitation must be applied with all its rigour when no sufficient cause is shown. Liberal with all its rigour when no sufficient cause is shown. Liberal with all its rigour when no sufficient cause is shown. Liberal approach does not mean condoning inordinate delays without approach does not mean condoning inordinate delays without approach does not mean condoning inordinate delays without justifiable cause. justifiable cause. 5.6 There is legal maxim 5.6 There is legal maxim- "Vigilantibus non dormientibus Jura rmientibus Jura subveniunt" meaning that law assists those who are vigilant with subveniunt" meaning that law assists those who are vigilant with subveniunt" meaning that law assists those who are vigilant with their rights and not those who sleep thereupon. It is trite law that their rights and not those who sleep thereupon. It is trite law that their rights and not those who sleep thereupon. It is trite law that filing of an appeal or an application under any Act is a right filing of an appeal or an application under any Act is a right filing of an appeal or an application under any Act is a right provided by the concerned statute. This rig provided by the concerned statute. This right carries certain ht carries certain obligations including adhering to the time limit prescribed in the obligations including adhering to the time limit prescribed in the obligations including adhering to the time limit prescribed in the statute for filing of such an appeal or application. Sometimes the statute for filing of such an appeal or application. Sometimes the statute for filing of such an appeal or application. Sometimes the relevant statute carves out exceptions by granting the competent relevant statute carves out exceptions by granting the competent relevant statute carves out exceptions by granting the competent authority/forum a power to entertain a authority/forum a power to entertain an appeal or application n appeal or application beyond the prescribed period on sufficient cause. It is in the hue of beyond the prescribed period on sufficient cause. It is in the hue of beyond the prescribed period on sufficient cause. It is in the hue of such an express authorization that the concerned authority/forum such an express authorization that the concerned authority/forum such an express authorization that the concerned authority/forum can exercise its discretion and condone the delay, if satisfied with can exercise its discretion and condone the delay, if satisfied with can exercise its discretion and condone the delay, if satisfied with the reasonableness of the ca the reasonableness of the cause in late presentation. In the context use in late presentation. In the context of Income-tax Act, 1961, although section 249(2) of the Act requires tax Act, 1961, although section 249(2) of the Act requires tax Act, 1961, although section 249(2) of the Act requires the filing of an appeal before the CIT(A)/JCIT(A) within 30 days, the filing of an appeal before the CIT(A)/JCIT(A) within 30 days, the filing of an appeal before the CIT(A)/JCIT(A) within 30 days, sub-section (3) empowers the CIT(A)/JCIT(A) to admit an appeal section (3) empowers the CIT(A)/JCIT(A) to admit an appeal section (3) empowers the CIT(A)/JCIT(A) to admit an appeal after the expiry after the expiry of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period. had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period. had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period. As discussed in the preceding para, the present appellant has not As discussed in the preceding para, the present appellant has not As discussed in the preceding para, the present appellant has not been able to show any reasonable cause for filing the appeal la been able to show any reasonable cause for filing the appeal la been able to show any reasonable cause for filing the appeal late. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the statutory right From the facts of the case, it is clear that the statutory right From the facts of the case, it is clear that the statutory right to appeal which was vested with the appellant was not exercised appeal which was vested with the appellant was not exercised appeal which was vested with the appellant was not exercised within the stipulated time u/s.249(2). Thus, this clearly is a case of within the stipulated time u/s.249(2). Thus, this clearly is a case of within the stipulated time u/s.249(2). Thus, this clearly is a case of laches and is directly the result of deliberate inac laches and is directly the result of deliberate inaction on the part of tion on the part of the appellant. Therefore, the law cannot come to its rescue by the appellant. Therefore, the law cannot come to its rescue by the appellant. Therefore, the law cannot come to its rescue by condoning the delay for such inaction on the part of the appellant. condoning the delay for such inaction on the part of the appellant. condoning the delay for such inaction on the part of the appellant.

Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. No. 6880 & 6881/MUM/2025

5.7 Reliance is also placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Mumbai 5.7 Reliance is also placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Mumbai 5.7 Reliance is also placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Aditya Sapru Vs AC ITAT in the case of Aditya Sapru Vs ACIT [TS-881-ITAT ITAT-2025(Mum)] dated 24-06- -2025 vide which appeal of the appellant has been 2025 vide which appeal of the appellant has been dismissed on account of delay in filing of appeal and held that: dismissed on account of delay in filing of appeal and held that: dismissed on account of delay in filing of appeal and held that: - "We consider it appropriate to adjudicate on the delay rather "We consider it appropriate to adjudicate on the delay rather "We consider it appropriate to adjudicate on the delay rather than merits of the case at the outset c than merits of the case at the outset considering the enormity onsidering the enormity of the delay. We need to examine the issue in the light of of the delay. We need to examine the issue in the light of of the delay. We need to examine the issue in the light of facts and the circumstances of the case and also in view of facts and the circumstances of the case and also in view of facts and the circumstances of the case and also in view of the in terms of section 5 of the Limitation Act, whereby the in terms of section 5 of the Limitation Act, whereby the in terms of section 5 of the Limitation Act, whereby discretion is vested in the Court/Appellate Authority to admit discretion is vested in the Court/Appellate Authority to discretion is vested in the Court/Appellate Authority to an appeal or an application, after the expiry of the prescribed an appeal or an application, after the expiry of the prescribed an appeal or an application, after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, if the appellant shows 'sufficient cause' period of limitation, if the appellant shows 'sufficient cause' period of limitation, if the appellant shows 'sufficient cause' for not preferring the application within the prescribed time. for not preferring the application within the prescribed time. for not preferring the application within the prescribed time. The expression 'sufficient cause' commonly appears in the The expression 'sufficient cause' commonly appears in the The expression 'sufficient cause' commonly appears in the provisions of order 22 Rule 9 (2), CPC and Section 5 of the provisions of order 22 Rule 9 (2), CPC and Section 5 of the provisions of order 22 Rule 9 (2), CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has Limitation Act. The Court while allowing such application has to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for to draw a distinction between delay and inordinate delay for want of bona fides of an inaction or negligence which would want of bona fides of an inaction or negligence which would want of bona fides of an inaction or negligence which would deprive a par deprive a party of the protection of Section 5. "Sufficient cause" is a condition precedent for exercise of 5. "Sufficient cause" is a condition precedent for exercise of 5. "Sufficient cause" is a condition precedent for exercise of discretion by the Court for condoning the delay. Courts have discretion by the Court for condoning the delay. Courts have discretion by the Court for condoning the delay. Courts have time and again held that when mandatory provision is not time and again held that when mandatory provision is not time and again held that when mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay is not properl complied with and that delay is not properly, satisfactorily y, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone the and convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone the and convincingly explained, the Court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone. The law of Limitation is delay on sympathetic grounds alone. The law of Limitation is delay on sympathetic grounds alone. The law of Limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim ""Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit enshrined in the legal maxim ""Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit enshrined in the legal maxim ""Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium" (It is for the general welfare that a period be put Finis Litium" (It is for the general welfare that a period be Finis Litium" (It is for the general welfare that a period be to litigation). to litigation). 5.1 To understand the scope of the term "sufficient cause" in 5.1 To understand the scope of the term "sufficient cause" in 5.1 To understand the scope of the term "sufficient cause" in matters of delay, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble matters of delay, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble matters of delay, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj and Ors vs The Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj and Ors vs The Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj and Ors vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746 wherein Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746 where Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2014 SC 746 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the sufficient cause the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the sufficient cause the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the sufficient cause does not include the negligent manner in which the applicant does not include the negligent manner in which the applicant does not include the negligent manner in which the applicant had acted or/ and there was a want of bona fide, on his/her had acted or/ and there was a want of bona fide, on his/her had acted or/ and there was a want of bona fide, on his/her part. If a party does not act diligently or remains inactive, it part. If a party does not act diligently or remains inactive, it part. If a party does not act diligently or remains inactive, it cannot qua cannot qualify as sufficient ground allowing the court to lify as sufficient ground allowing the court to exercise discretion in favour of such a party. Condonation of exercise discretion in favour of such a party. Condonation of exercise discretion in favour of such a party. Condonation of delay is not an automatic right but requires the person delay is not an automatic right but requires the person delay is not an automatic right but requires the person requesting it to provide a valid explanation for each day of requesting it to provide a valid explanation for each day of requesting it to provide a valid explanation for each day of delay and demonstrate a reaso delay and demonstrate a reasonable cause. "Sufficient nable cause. "Sufficient Cause" cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction Cause" cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction Cause" cannot be liberally interpreted, if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. In the case of or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. In the case of or lack of bona fides is attributed to the party. In the case of Anshul Agarwal vs New Okhla Industrial Development Anshul Agarwal vs New Okhla Industrial Development Anshul Agarwal vs New Okhla Industrial Development

Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. No. 6880 & 6881/MUM/2025

Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, the hon'ble Apex Court held Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, the hon'ble Apex Court Authority (2011) 14 SCC 578, the hon'ble Apex Court that the reason provided for the delay must be something that the reason provided for the delay must be something that the reason provided for the delay must be something beyond the individual's control that prevented them from beyond the individual's control that prevented them from beyond the individual's control that prevented them from approaching the Court. THE TAX approaching the Court. THE TAX 5.2 It is well established in law that the period of limitation 5.2 It is well established in law that the period of limitation 5.2 It is well established in law that the period of limitation has to be construed somewhat strictly as has to be construed somewhat strictly as it has the effect of it has the effect of vesting for one and taking away right from the other. To vesting for one and taking away right from the other. To vesting for one and taking away right from the other. To condone the delay in a mechanical or a routine manner may condone the delay in a mechanical or a routine manner may condone the delay in a mechanical or a routine manner may amount to jeopardizing the legislative intent behind Section 5 amount to jeopardizing the legislative intent behind Section 5 amount to jeopardizing the legislative intent behind Section 5 of the Act. Where the parties chose to sleep over their rights of the Act. Where the parties chose to sleep over their r of the Act. Where the parties chose to sleep over their r for prolonged periods without any just cause, can hardly for prolonged periods without any just cause, can hardly for prolonged periods without any just cause, can hardly claim equity in justice particularly faced with the statutory claim equity in justice particularly faced with the statutory claim equity in justice particularly faced with the statutory provisions of Section 5. In construing enactments which provisions of Section 5. In construing enactments which provisions of Section 5. In construing enactments which provide period of limitation for institution of proceedings, the provide period of limitation for institution of proceedings, the provide period of limitation for institution of proceedings, the purpose is purpose is to intimate people that after lapse of certain time to intimate people that after lapse of certain time from a certain event, a proceeding will not be entertained from a certain event, a proceeding will not be entertained from a certain event, a proceeding will not be entertained where a strict grammatical construction is normally the safe where a strict grammatical construction is normally the safe where a strict grammatical construction is normally the safe guide. 5.3 The hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan V. 5.3 The hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan V. 5.3 The hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurth M. Krishnamurthy, AIR 1998 SC 3222 held as under: y, AIR 1998 SC 3222 held as under: "11. Rules of limitation are meant to see that parties do not "11. Rules of limitation are meant to see that parties do not "11. Rules of limitation are meant to see that parties do not resort dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The resort dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The resort dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. Law o caused by reason of legal injury. Law of limitation fixes a life f limitation fixes a life span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury span for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would so suffered. Time is precious and the wasted time would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would never revisit. During efflux of time newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal rem sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal rem by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for by approaching the courts. So a life span must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for laundering the remedy each remedy. Unending period for laundering the remedy each remedy. Unending period for laundering the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept anarchy. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept anarchy. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fi alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. 5.4 In the case of State of West Bengal vs. Administrator, 5.4 In the case of State of West Bengal vs. Administrator, 5.4 In the case of State of West Bengal vs. Administrator, Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749, the Hon'ble Supreme Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749, the Hon'ble Supreme Howrah Municipality, AIR 1972 SC 749, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: Court held that: - .parties must act bonafidely, expeditiously and with due .parties must act bonafidely, expeditiously and with due .parties must act bonafidely, expeditiously and with due care. A casual or a negligent litigant who care. A casual or a negligent litigant who has acted with has acted with utter irresponsible attitude, cannot claim the condonation of utter irresponsible attitude, cannot claim the condonation of utter irresponsible attitude, cannot claim the condonation of delay in law when the right has accrued to the other side. delay in law when the right has accrued to the other side. delay in law when the right has accrued to the other side. The expression "sufficient cause" will always have relevancy The expression "sufficient cause" will always have relevancy The expression "sufficient cause" will always have relevancy to reasonableness. The actions which can be condoned by to reasonableness. The actions which can be condoned by to reasonableness. The actions which can be condoned by Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. No. 6880 & 6881/MUM/2025 the Court should fall within the realm of normal human e Court should fall within the realm of normal human e Court should fall within the realm of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. It is neither expected conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. It is neither expected conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. It is neither expected nor can it be a normal conduct of a public servant or a litigant nor can it be a normal conduct of a public servant or a litigant nor can it be a normal conduct of a public servant or a litigant that they would that they would keep the files unmoved, unprocessed for keep the files unmoved, unprocessed for months together on months together on their tables. 5.5 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision in the case 5.5 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision in the case 5.5 The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its decision in the case Surinder Kumar Boveja Vs. CWT 287 ITR 52 has Surinder Kumar Boveja Vs. CWT 287 ITR 52 has Surinder Kumar Boveja Vs. CWT 287 ITR 52 has categorically held that delays cannot be routinely excused. In categorically held that delays cannot be routinely excused. In categorically held that delays cannot be routinely excused. In this decision, the Hon'ble High Court has further held as this decision, the Hon'ble High Court has further held as this decision, the Hon'ble High Court has further held as under: "Where "Where the delay is prolonged and the assessee is not able to the delay is prolonged and the assessee is not able to show that the delay had occurred in spite of exercise of due show that the delay had occurred in spite of exercise of due show that the delay had occurred in spite of exercise of due attention and diligence, the assessee cannot complain, if the attention and diligence, the assessee cannot complain, if the attention and diligence, the assessee cannot complain, if the delay is not condoned." delay is not condoned." 5.6 In the decision rendered in the case of Rankak and Ors. 5.6 In the decision rendered in the case of Rankak and 5.6 In the decision rendered in the case of Rankak and V Rewa Coalfields Ltd. reported at AIR 1962 SC 361, the V Rewa Coalfields Ltd. reported at AIR 1962 SC 361, the V Rewa Coalfields Ltd. reported at AIR 1962 SC 361, the hon'ble Apex Court has held that the party has to show hon'ble Apex Court has held that the party has to show hon'ble Apex Court has held that the party has to show reason for delay on the last day of the limitation period and reason for delay on the last day of the limitation period and reason for delay on the last day of the limitation period and for each day thereafter. It was further held that condonation for each day thereafter. It was further held that condonation for each day thereafter. It was further held that condonation is not a matter is not a matter of right and that the Courts have to exercise of right and that the Courts have to exercise discretionary jurisdiction. discretionary jurisdiction. 5.7 The issue of condonation of delay had come up before 5.7 The issue of condonation of delay had come up before 5.7 The issue of condonation of delay had come up before Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Brijbandhu Nanda Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Brijbandhu Nanda Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Brijbandhu Nanda (44 ITR 688). The delay was not condoned by the Tribunal (44 ITR 688). The delay was not condoned by the Tribunal (44 ITR 688). The delay was not condoned by the Tribunal and on f and on further appeal, the Hon'ble High Court had held that urther appeal, the Hon'ble High Court had held that there is no justification for the delay as under: there is no justification for the delay as under: "Even assuming that the questions referred are questions of "Even assuming that the questions referred are questions of "Even assuming that the questions referred are questions of law, I am of opinion that there was no error on the part of the law, I am of opinion that there was no error on the part of the law, I am of opinion that there was no error on the part of the Tribunal in not condoning the Tribunal in not condoning the delay in Its discretion. In fact, delay in Its discretion. In fact, as appears from the assessee's own petition for condonation as appears from the assessee's own petition for condonation as appears from the assessee's own petition for condonation of delay in 86 and 87 of 1954 of delay in 86 and 87 of 1954-55 dated May 55 dated May 5, 1955, the assessee does not appear to have explained 5, 1955, the assessee does not appear to have explained 5, 1955, the assessee does not appear to have explained why he waited for 56 days after he received the order on why he waited for 56 days after he received the why he waited for 56 days after he received the February 5, 1954, as aforesaid. It further appears from a February 5, 1954, as aforesaid. It further appears from a February 5, 1954, as aforesaid. It further appears from a letter dated April 9, 1954, from the Assistant Registrar of the dated April 9, 1954, from the Assistant Registrar of the dated April 9, 1954, from the Assistant Registrar of the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, that the appeals were received Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, that the appeals were received Appellate Tribunal, Bombay, that the appeals were received by him on April 7, 1954, that is to say, one day beyond the by him on April 7, 1954, that is to say, one day beyond the by him on April 7, 1954, that is to say, one day beyond the period of limitation. In view of sub d of limitation. In view of sub-rule (2) of rule 7, which rule (2) of rule 7, which provides that a memorandum of appeal, sent by post, shall provides that a memorandum of appeal, sent by post, shall provides that a memorandum of appeal, sent by post, shall be deemed to have been presented to the Registrar or to the be deemed to have been presented to the Registrar or to the be deemed to have been presented to the Registrar or to the officer authorised by the Registrar, on the day on which it is officer authorised by the Registrar, on the day on which it is officer authorised by the Registrar, on the day on which it is received in the o received in the office of the Tribunal at Bombay, it is clear ffice of the Tribunal at Bombay, it is clear

Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. No. 6880 & 6881/MUM/2025 that the appeals were received by the Registrar out of time. that the appeals were received by the Registrar out of time. that the appeals were received by the Registrar out of time. We have discussed the general mandatory aspect of the We have discussed the general mandatory aspect of the We have discussed the general mandatory aspect of the provisions of the Act and the rules thereunder in our decision provisions of the Act and the rules thereunder in our decision provisions of the Act and the rules thereunder in our decision in Govinda Chowdhury V. Commissio in Govinda Chowdhury V. Commissioner of Income ner of Income-tax referred to above. Thus, even the delay of one day was not referred to above. Thus, even the delay of one day was not referred to above. Thus, even the delay of one day was not condoned by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court. condoned by the Hon'ble Orissa High Court. 5.8 Moreover, in cases where the assessee has not come up 5.8 Moreover, in cases where the assessee has not come up 5.8 Moreover, in cases where the assessee has not come up clean and the reasons given are not based on facts, the clean and the reasons given are not based on facts, the clean and the reasons given are not based on facts, the delay cannot be condon delay cannot be condoned merely because of sympathy. It ed merely because of sympathy. It was so decided in the case of Mewa Ram (Deceased by L. was so decided in the case of Mewa Ram (Deceased by L. was so decided in the case of Mewa Ram (Deceased by L. Rs) &Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 45. The Hon'ble Rs) &Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 45. The Hon'ble Rs) &Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 45. The Hon'ble Supreme Court have time and again held that when Supreme Court have time and again held that when Supreme Court have time and again held that when mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay is mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay is mandatory provision is not complied with and that delay is not properly satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the not properly satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the not properly satisfactorily and convincingly explained, the court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone. In the case of Jagdish Lal and Others V.s State of alone. In the case of Jagdish Lal and Others V.s State of alone. In the case of Jagdish Lal and Others V.s State of Haryana (1996) 6 SCC 267 wherein it was observed by the Haryana (1996) 6 SCC 267 wherein it was observed by the Haryana (1996) 6 SCC 267 wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble court that the appel Hon'ble court that the appellant kept on sleeping for the lant kept on sleeping for the period and suddenly decided to file the appeal. Again, period and suddenly decided to file the appeal. Again, period and suddenly decided to file the appeal. Again, Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan & Others, in the case of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan & Others, in the case of Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan & Others, in the case of M/s. Binami Cement Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & M/s. Binami Cement Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & M/s. Binami Cement Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, (S.B. (sales Tax) Revision Petition No.556/2011) Others, (S.B. (sales Tax) Revision Petition No.556/2011) Others, (S.B. (sales Tax) Revision Petition No.556/2011) decided that delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned ed that delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned ed that delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned for the reason that appellant failed to explain the specifically for the reason that appellant failed to explain the specifically for the reason that appellant failed to explain the specifically the delay for the the delay for the particular period. It has been held that the particular period. It has been held that the courts, including the Supreme Court, no doubt have courts, including the Supreme Court, no doubt have courts, including the Supreme Court, no doubt have recommended liberal app recommended liberal approach in considering applications for roach in considering applications for condonation of delay, yet the concepts such as liberal condonation of delay, yet the concepts such as liberal condonation of delay, yet the concepts such as liberal approach, justice approach, justice- oriented approach and substantial justice oriented approach and substantial justice cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation especially when on facts the authorit limitation especially when on facts the authority before which y before which application under section 5 of Limitation Act is filed, finds no application under section 5 of Limitation Act is filed, finds no application under section 5 of Limitation Act is filed, finds no justification for the delay. justification for the delay. 5.9 It has been held by the Courts that while considering the 5.9 It has been held by the Courts that while considering the 5.9 It has been held by the Courts that while considering the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the courts application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the courts application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the courts do not enjoy unlimited do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers and unbridled discretionary powers and the discretion has to be exercised within reasonable and the discretion has to be exercised within reasonable and the discretion has to be exercised within reasonable bounds. It has been further held that the discretion under bounds. It has been further held that the discretion under bounds. It has been further held that the discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act has to be systematically section 5 of the Limitation Act has to be systematically section 5 of the Limitation Act has to be systematically exercised duly informed by reasons and that whims or exercised duly informed by reasons and that whim exercised duly informed by reasons and that whim fancies, prejudices or predilections cannot and should not fancies, prejudices or predilections cannot and should not fancies, prejudices or predilections cannot and should not form the basis of exercising the discretionary powers to form the basis of exercising the discretionary powers to form the basis of exercising the discretionary powers to condone delay. In the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical condone delay. In the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical condone delay. In the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Limited Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Industries Limited Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Industries Limited Vs. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation [(2010) 5 SCC 4 Corporation [(2010) 5 SCC 4591, the Hon'ble Supreme Court 591, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. No. 6880 & 6881/MUM/2025 has held that even while a liberal approach is desirable in has held that even while a liberal approach is desirable in has held that even while a liberal approach is desirable in condoning the delay of short duration, stricter approach is condoning the delay of short duration, stricter approach is condoning the delay of short duration, stricter approach is required to be applied in cases of inordinate delay. required to be applied in cases of inordinate delay. required to be applied in cases of inordinate delay.

7.1 We are of opinion that while the law of limi We are of opinion that while the law of limitation is a statute of tation is a statute of repose, the expression "sufficient cause" under Section 249(3) must repose, the expression "sufficient cause" under Section 249(3) must repose, the expression "sufficient cause" under Section 249(3) must be interpreted with a degree of flexibility to ensure that be interpreted with a degree of flexibility to ensure that be interpreted with a degree of flexibility to ensure that technicalities do not override the cause of justice. As held by the technicalities do not override the cause of justice. As held by the technicalities do not override the cause of justice. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji nd Acquisition v. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (1987) 167 ITR 471, the power to condone delay is conferred to , the power to condone delay is conferred to enable Courts to do substantial justice. When substantial justice enable Courts to do substantial justice. When substantial justice enable Courts to do substantial justice. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. to be preferred.

Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. No. 6880 & 6881/MUM/2025 7.2 In the present case, the assessee’s inaction was not born of In the present case, the assessee’s inaction was not born of In the present case, the assessee’s inaction was not born of "casualness" but of a misplaced reliance on the ongoing scrutiny "casualness" but of a misplaced reliance on the ongoing scrutiny "casualness" but of a misplaced reliance on the ongoing scrutiny proceedings. The attempt to resolve the grievance before the DRP proceedings. The attempt to resolve the grievance before the DRP proceedings. The attempt to resolve the grievance before the DRP indicates that the assessee was indeed pursu indicates that the assessee was indeed pursuing a remedy, ing a remedy, albeit in the wrong forum or under a mistaken procedural understanding. In the wrong forum or under a mistaken procedural understanding. In the wrong forum or under a mistaken procedural understanding. In tax matters, where an assessee is actively contesting a disallowance tax matters, where an assessee is actively contesting a disallowance tax matters, where an assessee is actively contesting a disallowance in a parallel proceeding, such conduct cannot be termed "deliberate in a parallel proceeding, such conduct cannot be termed "deliberate in a parallel proceeding, such conduct cannot be termed "deliberate inaction."

7.3 We find that th We find that the assessee has a strong prima facie prima facie case on merits, involving the verification of bonus payments under Section merits, involving the verification of bonus payments under Section merits, involving the verification of bonus payments under Section 43B made before the statutory due date. It is a settled principle that 43B made before the statutory due date. It is a settled principle that 43B made before the statutory due date. It is a settled principle that the State should not unjustly enrich itself by tax collection through the State should not unjustly enrich itself by tax collection through the State should not unjustly enrich itself by tax collection through procedural lapses if the tax is otherwise not due. edural lapses if the tax is otherwise not due.

7.4 The decisions relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) (such as The decisions relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) (such as The decisions relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) (such as Aditya Sapru and Basawaraj Basawaraj) pertain to cases where the delay was coupled ) pertain to cases where the delay was coupled with mala fides or an absolute lack of explanation. Here, the with mala fides or an absolute lack of explanation. Here, the with mala fides or an absolute lack of explanation. Here, the explanation—reliance on the DRP/Scrutiny process nce on the DRP/Scrutiny process—provides a nce on the DRP/Scrutiny process rational nexus to the human conduct of a litigant seeking redressal. rational nexus to the human conduct of a litigant seeking redressal. rational nexus to the human conduct of a litigant seeking redressal.

7.5 Considering the totality of the circumstances, we are of the Considering the totality of the circumstances, we are of the Considering the totality of the circumstances, we are of the view that the assessee did not stand to gain by delaying the appeal. view that the assessee did not stand to gain by delaying the appeal. view that the assessee did not stand to gain by delaying the appeal. The delay was a result of procedural misguidance rather than a lack was a result of procedural misguidance rather than a lack was a result of procedural misguidance rather than a lack of diligence. To deny a hearing on merits in a case involving a clear of diligence. To deny a hearing on merits in a case involving a clear of diligence. To deny a hearing on merits in a case involving a clear statutory deduction would be a miscarriage of justice. statutory deduction would be a miscarriage of justice. statutory deduction would be a miscarriage of justice.

Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. Nobel Biocare India Pvt. Ltd. No. 6880 & 6881/MUM/2025 7.6 Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we condone Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we condone Accordingly, in the interest of substantial justice, we condone the delay of 996 days and restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. elay of 996 days and restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. elay of 996 days and restore the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

7.7 The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly The ground No. 1 of the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed. Since we have already restored the matter, the other allowed. Since we have already restored the matter, the other allowed. Since we have already restored the matter, the other grounds raised by the assessee grounds raised by the assessee are rendered academic. are rendered academic.