AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE,NIZAMABAD vs. ITO., EXEMPTION WARD-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1200/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 January 2026AY 2005-0610 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the reasons advanced by the assessee for the delay, namely engagement of staff in seasonal agricultural produce distribution, change of Secretary, and alleged lack of knowledge of the CIT(A)'s order until receipt of a recovery notice, do not constitute 'sufficient cause' within the meaning of settled legal principles. The Tribunal noted that the assessee, being a statutory body, is expected to function with due diligence. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had initially responded to a notice from the CIT(A) but subsequently remained non-responsive to subsequent notices, reflecting a casual and negligent approach. The reliance on the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in Market Committee, Babain vs. Maya Ram was found to be misplaced as the facts were distinguishable. The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Balwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., emphasizing that while a liberal approach may be adopted, the conduct of the party and absence of due diligence are material considerations. Applying these principles, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to establish bona fide and sufficient cause for the inordinate delay. Consequently, the delay was not condoned, and the appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation. No specific issue regarding the merits of the assessment was decided as the appeals were dismissed on a procedural ground.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Agricultural Market Committee, filed four appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Years (AYs) 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08. These appeals were against orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 03.07.2024. The appeals were filed with a delay of 297 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, citing reasons such as staff engagement in seasonal agricultural produce distribution, frequent changes in the post of Secretary, and delayed knowledge of the CIT(A)'s order due to awaiting a recovery notice. The revenue objected to the condonation, highlighting the inordinate delay and the assessee's conduct.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 297 days in filing the appeals by the assessee is liable to be condoned on the grounds of sufficient cause, as contemplated under Section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the principles laid down in judicial precedents. Assessee's Contention: The delay was not deliberate but occurred due to circumstances beyond their control, including staff being engaged in seasonal agricultural activities, changes in the Secretary's post, and delayed awareness of the CIT(A)'s order upon receiving a recovery notice. They relied on the Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment in Market Committee, Babain vs. Maya Ram. Revenue's Contention: The delay of 297 days is inordinate and not a minor delay. The assessee, being a statutory body, should have conducted regular meetings and handled administrative changes efficiently. The claim of not knowing about the order until a recovery notice was received is unacceptable, as evidenced by their earlier response to a notice from the CIT(A). They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Balwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 253(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘SMC‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate

For Respondent: Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, Sr.DR

, 1200, 1201 & 1202/Hyd/2025 Agricultural Market Committee आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रविश सूद,न्याविक सदस्य एिं श्री मधुसूदन सािवििा लेखा सदस्य समक्ष | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.1199, 1200, 1201 & 1202/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08) Agricultural Market Vs. Income Tax Officer Committee Exemption Ward-1(1) 1-4-111/9, Main Road Aayakar Bhavan Banswada Basheerbagh Nizamabad-503003 Hyderabad Telangana PAN:AAALA0681P (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Ms. S. Sandhya, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by:: Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, Sr.DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 20/01/2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 20/01/2026 आदेश/ORDER PER BENCH.:

These four appeals are filed by Agricultural Market Committee (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) all dated 03.07.2024 for the A.Ys. 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08. As identical issues are involved in all these appeals, all these appeals are heard together and one consolidated order is being passed for the sake of brevity.

Page 1 of Agricultural Market Committee 2. We observe that there is a delay of 297 days in filing all these four appeals before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed separate condonation petitions along with affidavits explaining the reasons for delay. Since the reasons stated in all the affidavits are identical, for the sake of completeness, we consider the affidavit filed in to reproduce as under:

Page 2 of 10 Page 3 of Agricultural Market Committee 3. On the basis of the above affidavit, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional, but occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. She further submitted that during the relevant period, the staff of the assessee were engaged in seasonal agricultural produce distribution activities and therefore could not devote sufficient time for filing the appeals. It was also submitted that the assessee, being a statutory body, experiences frequent changes in the post of Secretary, which also contributed to the delay. She further submitted that the assessee came to know about the passing of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) only on 23.06.2025, upon receipt of a recovery notice from the Revenue. Thereafter, the assessee had to obtain administrative sanction for release of funds towards payment of appeal filing fees, and after obtaining such sanction and making payment of the requisite fees, the appeals were filed before this Tribunal. Accordingly, she prayed that the delay be condoned and the appeals be admitted for adjudication on merits. In support of her submissions, the Ld. AR also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Market Committee, Babain vs. Maya Ram, CR-256 of 2019 (O&M), dated 21.11.2022.

Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) strongly objected to the condonation of delay and submitted that the delay of 297 days is inordinate and not a minor delay. He submitted that the assessee is a statutory body and, therefore, regular meetings on legal and administrative matters are expected to be conducted. Even in the event of change of Secretary, charge is normally handed over to another officer, and such routine administrative Page 4 of Agricultural Market Committee changes cannot justify prolonged inaction. He also submitted that the contention of the assessee that it came to know about the appellate order only upon receipt of recovery notice on 23.06.2025 is not acceptable. He submitted that the contention of the assessee, regarding not receipt of any communication from Ld. CIT(A), cannot be accepted without any supporting evidences. In this regard, he invited our attention to para no. 5.1 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in wherein in response to the first notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 02.03.2024, the assessee had sought an adjournment vide its letter dated 12.03.2024. On the basis of this fact, he argued that it clearly establishes that the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were duly communicated to the assessee. The Ld. DR also submitted that the explanation that staff were engaged in seasonal agricultural produce distribution activities is wholly unacceptable, as the assessee, being a statutory body, cannot adopt a casual approach in pursuing statutory legal remedies. In support, the Ld. DR relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors., Civil Appeal No.1166 of 2006 dated 08.07.2010, wherein at para no.16, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that delay is only one of the factors, and the Court must also examine the conduct of the party, bona fides, and whether the delay could have been avoided by exercising due diligence. Relying on the said judgment, he submitted that the delay in the present case could have been easily avoided had the assessee acted with reasonable care. He further submitted that this is not the first round of litigation. In the first round, this Tribunal had already set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with specific directions vide order dated 29.05.2019 in to 408/Hyd/2019. Even thereafter, in the second round, the Page 5 of Agricultural Market Committee assessee has demonstrated a highly casual approach. Accordingly, he prayed that the appeals be dismissed as barred by limitation.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that there is a delay of 297 days in filing the present appeals. The reasons advanced by the assessee broadly relate to (i) engagement of staff in seasonal agricultural produce distribution activities, (ii) change of Secretary and (iii) alleged lack of knowledge of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) till receipt of recovery notice on 23.06.2025. In our considered view, none of these reasons constitute “sufficient cause” within the meaning of settled legal principles. The assessee is a statutory body and is expected to function with administrative discipline. Change of officers is a routine incident of governance and cannot be accepted as a valid justification for prolonged inaction. Similarly, engagement of staff in other activities cannot absolve the assessee from its statutory obligation to pursue legal remedies within the prescribed time. We also find merit in the contention of the Ld. DR that, no evidence has been placed on record by the assessee to demonstrate that the appellate order or notices were not served electronically. Mere bald assertions in the affidavit, without any supporting material, cannot be accepted. Further, we have gone through the para no. 5.1 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in which is to the following effect: “5.1 The appellant had not filed his written submission with his Form 35. Therefore, it was given multiple opportunities to file written submission. The notices were issued electronically through the ITBA, but the appellant has failed to comply with the same. The details of the notices issued are as under: - Page 6 of Agricultural Market Committee Sr.No. Date of Issue of Date fixed for Compliance notice under submission / by Appellant section. 250 Hearing 1 02.03.2024 11.03.2024 Adjournment sought vide letter dated 12.03.2024 2 13.04.2024 19.04.2024 No compliance 3 23.04.2024 29.04.2024 No Compliance 4 30.05.2024 06.06.2024 No Compliance

On perusal of the above, we find that in response to the first notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) dated 02.03.2024, the assessee had sought an adjournment vide its letter dated 12.03.2024. This clearly establishes that the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were duly communicated to the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee admittedly remained non-responsive to the subsequent notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). This conduct clearly reflects a casual and negligent approach on the part of the assessee in prosecuting its own case. We have also gone through the para no.9 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Market Committee, Babain vs. Maya Ram (supra) relied upon by the assessee, which is to the following effect:

9. There is no material to show that the petitioner was ever called upon by the First Appellate Court to produce a document. The petitioner sent a letter to its Head Office for the grant of sanction within the period of limitation. However, it remained pending in the Head Office for more than a period of 3 years. The first appeal was filed immediately on receipt of the sanction from the Head Office. The working of a public authority is managed by its officials and they are required to follow the procedure laid down in the rules of their business. In such circumstances, some extra indulgence is required to be given to such authority in the matters of condonation of delay.

Page 7 of Agricultural Market Committee 7. On perusal of above, we find that the Hon’ble High Court has specifically recorded that in that case there was no material to show that the petitioner was ever called upon by the first appellate court to produce any document. Further, the Hon’ble Court noted that the petitioner had sent a letter to its Head Office seeking sanction within the period of limitation itself, but the matter remained pending at the Head Office for more than three years, which resulted in delay. The facts of the present case, however, are entirely different. Here, the assessee was duly served with notices, had initially responded, and thereafter chose to remain non-responsive. Therefore, the reliance placed on the aforesaid judgment is misplaced and distinguishable on facts. It is also relevant to note that this is the second round of litigation. This Tribunal had already set aside the matter earlier vide order dated 29.05.2019 in to 408/Hyd/2019. Even thereafter, the assessee has failed to demonstrate due diligence and seriousness in pursuing its statutory remedies. We have also gone through para no.16 of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwant Singh vs. Jagdish Singh & Ors. (supra), which is to the following effect: “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 Page 8 of Agricultural Market Committee 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.

On perusal of the above, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that while a liberal approach may be adopted in appropriate cases, the conduct of the party and absence of due diligence are equally material considerations. Applying the said principle to the present facts, we are of the considered view that the assessee has failed to establish bona fide and sufficient cause for condonation of such inordinate delay. Accordingly, we hold that the delay in filing the appeals is not liable to be condoned. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed as barred by limitation.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20th January 2026.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →