Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed appeals against the order dated 25.2.2025 passed by Ld PCIT, Sambalpur u/s.263 of the Act for assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10. The appeals were found to be barred by 3789 days.
Held
The Tribunal found that there was an inordinate delay of 3789 days in filing the appeals, and the reasons provided by the assessee were not plausible. The Tribunal held that such excessive delays, especially those resulting from negligence or inaction, cannot be excused as they undermine the purpose of the law of limitation.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals filed by the assessee were barred by limitation due to an inordinate delay, and if the reasons provided for condonation were sufficient.
Sections Cited
263
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
O R D E R Per Bench : These are appeals filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.2.2025 passed by Ld PCIT, Sambalpur u/s.263 of the Act for the assessment year 2007-08 to 2009-2010.
Shri M.R.Sahu, ld AR ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Asim Kumar Chakraborty, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue.
At the outset, it is found that the appeals of the assessee is barred by 3789 days stating the reason that the assessee was under the belief that as there was no incriminating material in the case of an unabated/completed assessment, the jurisdictional issues relating to section 263 order can be raised 2 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.551 to 553/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10) in the collateral proceedings while filing the appeal before the ld CIT(A) and to support this, has filed condonation petition. At the time of hearing also, ld AR reiterated the submissions made in the condonation petition.
In reply, ld CIT DR objected to the condonation petition and submitted that the reasons given in the petition is not plausible as well as inordinate delay has been occurred in filing the appeals.
We have considered the rival submissions as well as reasons stated in the condonation petition. We find that there is inordinate delay of 3789 days in filing the appeals. Even the reasons given by the assessee for condoning the delay in filing of appeals are not plausible one. We are of the view that the Courts will not typically excuse an excessively long delay, especially when it results from negligence, inaction, or a failure to provide a "sufficient cause". Condoning such delays would undermine the purpose of the law of limitation, which is to bring finality to legal matters. Therefore, we dismiss the appeals of the assessee being delay of more than 10 years in filing the appeal without giving sufficient cause.
In the result, appeals of the assessee stand dismissed.