MEENU, GOVINDPUR, ALLAHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CPC (NFAC, DELHI), DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD SMC BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.135/ALLD/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Meenu v. The Income Tax Officer MIG-23, govindpur CPC A-503, Satpushp Apartment Civil Lines, Allahabad PAN:AKFPM3770J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri S. K. Yogeshwar, Advocate Respondent by: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 09.02.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 05.08.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.8,30,470/-. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore, vide intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act’), dated 26.03.2019 assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,12,650/-.

2.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by

ITA No.135/ALLD/2025 Page 2 of 8

deleting the addition of Rs.4,94,698/- and sustaining the addition of Rs.2,87,478/- out of the total addition of Rs.7,82,176/- made by the CPC under the head ‘income from other sources’.

2.2 Being further aggrieved, now the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal:

2.3 The Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) submitted that there is a delay of 824 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the assessee had filed an application dated 09.07.2025 for condonation of delay, duly supported by an Affidavit, stating therein that the Ld. First Appellate Authority had passed the order on 09.02.2023 and during the relevant period the assessee had shifted to Mumbai and had forgotten to contact her Counsel and that the Counsel also could not contact the assessee due to change of address. Therefore, the appeal could not be filed before the Tribunal within the stipulated period. That Ld. A.R. prayed

ITA No.135/ALLD/2025 Page 3 of 8

that the delay be kindly condoned and the appeal be heard on merits.

3.0 The Ld. Sr. D.R. submitted that the assessee has failed to demonstrate that there was a sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal should not be condoned and the appeal of the assessee be dismissed.

4.0 I have heard the rival both the parties on the limited issue of limitation and have also perused the material on record. It is seen that the impugned order was passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority on 09.02.2023 and was uploaded on the portal of the Income Tax Department. In terms of provisions of section 253(3) of the Act, the appeal against this order was required to be filed within sixty days. However, the assessee, admittedly, filed the appeal after a delay of 824 days from the expiry of statutory period prescribed under section 253(3) of the Act. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is time barred and deserves to be dismissed in-limine, if not supported by sufficient reasons for the delay, in terms of section 253(5) of the Act.

4.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Managing committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Ors, reported in 12 SCC 649 has framed certain

ITA No.135/ALLD/2025 Page 4 of 8

criteria for condoning the delay in filing of appeal, which are as under:

(a) Lack of bonafied imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact; (b) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and totally unfettered free play is not allowed; (c) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its negligence cannot be given a total go-bye in the name of liberal approach. (d) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the applications are fanciful, the Courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such litigation. (e) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of the law of limitation. (f) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring the notion that the Courts are required to condone the delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system; (g) The increasing tendency to perceive the delay as a non- serious matter and hence lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, with legal parameters.

4.2 In view of the above, I have to examine as to whether the reasons put forth by assessee was sufficient within the purview of

ITA No.135/ALLD/2025 Page 5 of 8

provisions of section 253 (5) of the Act or not. The averment of the assessee was that when the impugned order dated 09.02.2023 was passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority, the assessee had shifted to Mumbai and she had forgotten to contact her Counsel and that the Counsel of the assessee also could not contact her due to change of address. It was further submitted that the assessee could access the impugned order with the help of her Counsel on 04.07.2025 when she returned to Allahabad on 03.07.2025. It is an undisputed fact that the order dated 09.02.2023 passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority was very much available on the official Income Tax e-filing portal and the assessee could have accessed and downloaded the impugned order immediately after its uploading from any location. The burden is on the assessee to explain the delay and to demonstrate that there was "sufficient cause" that prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within the prescribed time. However, in my considered view, the assessee has failed to do so. After considering the Affidavit, application for condonation of delay and other relevant material placed on record, I am of the view that the averments in the application/Affidavit are vague and are not corroborated by any independent evidence. There is no affirmation in the Affidavit/ application for condonation of delay that the delay was not deliberate. There is lack of bona fide

ITA No.135/ALLD/2025 Page 6 of 8

even in explaining the delay and there is complete absence of ground for condonation in the appeal memo. In my considered view, the assessee had failed to demonstrate that there was ‘sufficient cause’ or ‘sufficient reason’ behind the inordinate delay of 824 days in filing present appeal. 4.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj and Anr Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer [L4 SSC 8U(SC)], vide para 15 has summarized the law on the issue in dispute as under: "15. The law on the issue can be summarized to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the applicant has to explain the court as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in

ITA No.135/ALLD/2025 Page 7 of 8

violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamount to showing utter disregard to the legislature". 4.4 It is the trite law that the burden is on the party claiming condonation of delay to place before the appellate authority/Court, in clear and explicit terms, all the facts on which the party relies, so that the appellate authority/Court can come to the conclusion that it is not a case for want of diligence or inaction on the part of the assessee. In the case under consideration, admittedly, the assessee has not shown any action or vigilance for the delay of 824 days after the impugned order was passed and was available on the Income Tax Portal. The assessee did not care to file present appeal for nearly for two and half years post the passing of the impugned order. The averments made in the application/Affidavit by the assessee are not corroborated by any evidence so as to establish ‘sufficient cause’. Thus, the assessee has failed to make out a case that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal, as the assessee remained negligent and did not initiate any steps at all. Inaction and want of due diligence on the part of the assessee would not entitle the assessee to the benefit of the provisions of section 253(5) of the Act. Therefore, keeping in view the propositions of law laid down by the judicial precedents and having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of present case, as

ITA No.135/ALLD/2025 Page 8 of 8

discussed above, in my considered view, the assessee is found to be casual, non-serious and non-vigilant in preferring/instituting the instant appeal against the impugned order. Hence, the application of the assessee for condonation of delay being devoid of reasonable and sufficient cause or much less cause, merits dismissal. Consequently, the instant appeal stands dismissed in- limine on the ground of limitation.

4.5 Since I have dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of limitation, nothing further survives for adjudication and as such, the grounds raised by the assessee are not required to be gone into, nor was anything else argued before me.

4.6 In the final result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.

Order pronounced on 21/11/2025.

Sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] JUDICIAL MEMBER

DATED:21/11/2025 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR By order Assistant Registrar/DDO