Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 437 days and supported it with an affidavit. The assessee claimed to have health issues and lack of knowledge regarding tax procedures and email communication. The Revenue opposed the condonation of delay, highlighting the assessee's consistent negligence and non-compliance throughout the proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation for the delay was vague, unsubstantiated by evidence, and the overall conduct showed a lack of seriousness. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal held that a casual approach and lack of diligence cannot be grounds for condonation.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned based on the reasons provided by the assessee, considering the consistent negligence and lack of diligence throughout the proceedings.
Sections Cited
Section 147, Section 144, Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA
(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Babugari Kareem Basha Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 25/183, Sanjeeva Nagar 16-100, Degalapeta Village Nandyal Sirivella Post, Allagadda Andhra Pradesh Kurnool-518511 Andhra Pradesh PAN:AVJPB3692F (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाऩरती द्वधरध/Assessee by: None रधजस्वर द्वधरध/Revenue by:: Shri Karthik Manickam, SR-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 27/01/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 04/02/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Babugari Kareem Basha (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 18.04.2024 for the A.Y.2013-14.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal with a delay of 437 days. Along with the memorandum of appeal, the assessee has Page 1 of 7 Babugari Kareem Basha filed a petition for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 30.10.2025, 16.12.2025 and again on 27.01.2026. On all these dates, there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee and no adjournment petition was filed. In these circumstances, we proceeded to hear the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) and to dispose of the appeal on the basis of material available on record. Although no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, the reason for delay in filing this appeal is gathered from the affidavit filed by the assessee before us, which is to the following effect:
In the said affidavit, the assessee has stated that the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were received on email and the assessee was not conversant with the use of email and therefore could not pursue the appellate proceedings. It has further been stated that the assessee came to know about the dismissal of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) only after receiving phone calls from the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) regarding recovery of demand. The assessee has also stated that due to health reasons he was under bed rest and was unable to travel, which resulted in delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal.
Per contra, the Ld. DR strongly opposed the condonation of delay. The Ld. DR submitted that the conduct of the assessee throughout the proceedings shows continuous negligence and non-compliance. It was submitted that the assessee did not comply with statutory notices issued by the Ld. AO during assessment proceedings. Thereafter, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with delay and even before the Ld. CIT(A), there was persistent non-compliance, resulting in dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution. The Ld. DR further pointed out that in Form No.35 filed before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee did not even mention any reason for the delay and merely stated that grounds for condonation would be submitted later. It was further submitted that in the affidavit filed before the Tribunal, the assessee has taken a plea that he had undergone cardiac and vascular surgery on 15.07.2016. However, the assessment order in the present case was passed on 30.03.2022, which is nearly six years after the alleged surgery. The Ld. DR emphasized that no medical records or Page 4 of 7 Babugari Kareem Basha documentary evidence have been produced to substantiate the claim of continuous illness. It was thus contended that the assessee has again committed an inordinate delay of 437 days in filing the present appeal without any credible explanation and that the appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of limitation as well as for non-prosecution.
We have considered the material available on record, carefully gone through the petition for condonation of delay, the affidavit filed by the assessee and the submissions of the Ld. DR. It is an admitted fact that there is a delay of 437 days in filing the present appeal. The explanation offered by the assessee is that he was not conversant with email communication and that he was suffering from health issues. However, except for a bald assertion in the affidavit, no documentary evidence whatsoever has been placed on record to substantiate these claims. We further find that the conduct of the assessee throughout the proceedings reflects consistent negligence and lack of diligence. The assessee did not comply with notices during assessment proceedings, filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with delay, did not prosecute the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) leading to dismissal for non-prosecution, thereafter filed the present appeal with a substantial delay of 437 days and even before this Tribunal has chosen not to appear on three consecutive dates of hearing.
Further, we observe that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81 has held that the law of limitation has to be applied with all its rigour when prescribed by statute and that courts cannot condone delay on sympathetic grounds alone. It was further held that the expression “sufficient cause” implies
Page 5 of 7 Babugari Kareem Basha the presence of bona fides and reasonable diligence. It has also been held that a casual approach and lack of diligence cannot be a ground for condonation of delay. Applying these settled principles to the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that the assessee has failed to demonstrate any bona fide or sufficient cause for condonation of such an inordinate delay. The explanation offered is vague, unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence, and the overall conduct of the assessee shows complete lack of seriousness in prosecuting the appeal.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, we hold that the assessee has failed to make out a case for condonation of delay. Accordingly, the petition for condonation of delay is dismissed and consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as barred by limitation.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 4th February, 2026.