Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a Co-operative Bank, filed an income tax return declaring 'Nil' income and claiming a refund. The case was selected for scrutiny, and after several opportunities, the AO completed the assessment ex-parte under Section 144. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who also provided opportunities, but the assessee did not respond. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with a significant delay of 1076 days. The assessee cited a previous counsel's failure to inform them about proceedings as the reason for the delay. However, the Tribunal found this reason insufficient and not a 'reasonable cause' for condonation, citing Apex Court judgments emphasizing strict adherence to limitation periods.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT should be condoned, given the inordinate delay and the reasons provided by the assessee.
Sections Cited
144, 250, 253(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “PATNA BENCH”, PATNA
O R D E R
PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 10.12.2022, DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1047930516(1) on the following grounds:
“1.The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing an Co.X parte order without affording a reasonable and effective opportunity of abeing heard to the appellant. The principles of natural justice, particularly RBILIc. sewes-0011 audi alteram partem (no one should be condemned The Samastipur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. unheard), were grossly violated, thereby vitiating the entire appellate proceedings.
2. The appellate authority merely confirmed the assessment order passed w's 144 without independent examination OR analysis of facts, thus defeating the very purpose of the first appellate forum. The confirmation was mechanical, without recording any satisfaction regarding the correctness of the additions.”
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee is a Co- operative Bank and derives income from banking business, filed income tax return on 25.11.2014 declaring ‘Nil’ income claimed refund of Rs. 27,11,780/- and the assessee had state of its business income of Rs. 1,64,62,145/-. The case was selected for compulsory scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) was issued and subsequently, other notices were issued to the assessee. The assessee did not file its audit report as requested by the AO, the AO provided various opportunities to the assessee but there was no response, therefore, the AO was bound to complete assessment u/s 144 of the Act and final opportunity was also granted to the assessee but there was no response breach the AO assessed the income at Rs. 1,81,74,830/- completing the assessment u/s 144 on 30.11.2016.
3. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) provided various opportunities to the assessee as per para 4 of his order, 7 times opportunities were provided but the assessee did not respond any of the notices. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) after relying on various judgments decided the issue on 10.12.2022 on the basis of material available on record and upheld the order of the AO.
Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT with a delay of 1076 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed a condonation petition which is as under:
“1. That the appellant had filed an appeal against the assessment order dated 30.11.2016 passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. That subsequently, the appeal was transferred to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), and an ex parte appellate order was passed on The Samastipur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. 10.12.2022 under Section 250, dismissing the appeal on the ground of non- compliance and non-prosecution.
That there has been a delay in seeking appropriate relief and moving for restoration and fresh hearing of the appeal on merits. The delay is neither deliberate nor due to negligence or indifference on part of the appellant. 4. 11/20 That the delay occurred primarily due to the fact that the previous counsel engaged to handle the appellate matter did not inform or advise the appellant about the pendency of notices, proceedings, or PRAYER In view of the foregoing, the appellant most humbly prays that the Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) may graciously: a) Condone the delay in seeking restoration/re-hearing of the appeal against the order dated 10.12.2022; b) Restore the appeal for hearing on merits and provide an opportunity of personal hearing or video conferencing; and c) Grant any other relief deemed just and proper in the interest of equity and justice.” Heard both the parties.
At the outset of hearing, we noted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an order on 10.12.2022 as per Form 36, the date of service is communication of the order is 12.12.2022. However, the appeal was filed before the ITAT on 20.11.2025. Accordingly, the delay was computed for 1076 days. In this regard, the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay noted supra but the reason given in the condonation petition is not “reasonable cause” for not filing appeal within the due date hearing the case the condonation petition, it has been stated that “previous counsel engaged to enable the appellate matter did not inform/ advice the appellant about the pendency of notices/ proceedings, therefore, the assessee could not file the appeal within the time, filing of appeal which is inordinate delay has not been explained with reasonable cause. Recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court has also not condoned the delay in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy (died) SLP (Civil) No. 31248 of 2018 in which it has been laid down certain points
The Samastipur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. that in which circumstances the delay may be condoned. We are reproducing the same and some relevant part of the above order.
“26. On a harmonious consideration of the provisions of the law, as aforesaid, and the law laid down by this Court, it is evident that: (i) Law of limitation is based upon public policy that there should be an end to litigation by forfeiting the right to remedy rather than the right itself; (ii) A right or the remedy that has not been exercised or availed of for a long time must come to an end or cease to exist after a fixed period of time; (iii) The provisions of the Limitation Act have to be construed differently, such as Section 3 has to be construed in a strict sense whereas Section 5 has to be construed liberally; (iv) In order to advance substantial justice, though liberal approach, justice- oriented approach or cause of substantial justice may be kept in mind but the same cannot be used to defeat the substantial law of limitation contained in Section 3 of the Limitation Act; (v) Courts are empowered to exercise discretion to condone the delay if sufficient cause had been explained, but that exercise of power is discretionary in nature and may not be exercised even if sufficient cause is established for various factors such as, where there is inordinate delay, negligence and want of due diligence; (vi) Merely some persons obtained relief in similar matter, it does not mean that others are also entitled to the same benefit if the court is not satisfied with the cause shown for the delay in filing the appeal; (vii) Merits of the case are not required to be considered in condoning the delay; and (viii) Delay condonation application has to be decided on the parameters laid down for condoning the delay and condoning the delay for the reason that the conditions have been imposed, tantamounts to disregarding the statutory provision.
It is in the light of the above legal position that now we have to test whether the inordinate delay in filing the proposed appeal ought to be condoned or not in this case.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in somewhat similar situation, delay in filing appeal for the enhancement of compensation had been condoned by this Court. He placed reliance upon the case of Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors.9. In this case, delay in filing appeal was condoned as in other appeals compensation awarded at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. yd. was upheld and the proposed appellants were also held entitled to the same benefit of compensation at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq. yd. instead of Rs.101/- per sq. yd. as awarded but with the rider that they (2014) 14 SCC 127 18 | 2 2 The Samastipur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. will not be entitled for interest for the period of delay in approaching the High Court.
The other decision relied upon in this regard is the case of Imrat Lal & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors.10. In this case also the matter was regarding determination of compensation for the acquired land and there was a delay of 1110 days in filing the appeal for enhancement of compensation. Despite findings that no sufficient cause was shown in the application for condoning the delay, this Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal as a large number of similarly situate persons have been granted relief by this Court.
The aforesaid decisions would not cut any ice as imposition of conditions are not warranted when sufficient cause has not been shown for condoning the delay. Secondly, delay is not liable to be condoned merely because some persons have been granted relief on the facts of their own case. Condonation of delay in such circumstances is in violation of (2014) 14 SCC 133 the legislative intent or the express provision of the statute. Condoning of the delay merely for the reason that the claimants have been deprived of the interest for the delay without holding that they had made out a case for condoning the delay is not a correct approach, particularly when both the above decisions have been rendered in ignorance of the earlier pronouncement in the case of Basawaraj (supra).
Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted on the basis of additional documents that in connection with the land acquisition in some other Special Leave Petitions, delay was condoned taking a lenient view and the compensation was enhanced with the rider that the claimants shall not be entitled for statutory benefits for the period of delay in approaching this Court or the High Court. The said orders do not clearly spell out the facts and the reasons explaining the delay in filing the appeal(s) but the fact remains that the delay was condoned by taking too liberal an approach and putting conditions which have not been approved of by this Court itself. In the absence of the facts for getting the delay condoned in the referred cases, vis-à-vis, the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the facts or the reasons of getting the delay condoned are identical or similar. Therefore, we are unable to exercise our discretionary power of condoning the delay in filing the appeal on parity with the above order(s).
Moreover, the High Court, in the facts of this case, has not found it fit to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of condoning the delay. There is no occasion for us to interfere with the discretion so exercised by the High Court for the reasons recorded. First, the claimants were negligent in pursuing the reference and then in filing the proposed appeal. Secondly, most of the claimants have accepted the decision of the reference court. Thirdly, in the event the petitioners have not been substituted and made party to the reference before its decision, they could have applied for procedural review which they never did. Thus, there is apparently no due diligence on their part in pursuing the matter. Accordingly, in our opinion, High Court is justified in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
In the above situation, we do not deem it proper and necessary to interfere with the decision of the High Court refusing to condone the inordinate delay in filing the proposed appeal.
The Special Leave Petition, as such, lacks merit and is dismissed.”
The Samastipur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.
The Hon’ble Apex Court has not condoned the delay in the case of CI Builder Pvt. Ltd. Vs. PCIT reported in (2025) 178 taxman.com 257 (SC), order dated 04.09.2025 in which SLP filed by the assessee against the High Court order has been dismissed. The facts in the above judgment, the documents were promptly not handed over to the counsel and professional as per grossly failed to take action for which the assessee company appeal was not admitted by the Tribunal and the assessee was aware of the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) but assessee did not exercise any care to enquire about status of second appeal and tried to sit irresponsibility towards his lawyer and co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal refused and condone the delay and consequently dismissed the appeal as time barred and Hon’ble Apex Court affirm the order of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, the Ld. Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP filed by the assessee. Hearing the case on hand, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was communicated to the assessee as per Form 36 on 12.12.2022, order dated 10.12.2022 that clearly shows that the assessee was aware about the status of its appeal. However, in the condonation petition he had alleged upon the professional that he did not inform about the status of the appellate proceedings and in this regard the assessee has not filed any affidavit are any undertaing from its previous counsel stating that there is mistake on the part of the professional, therefore, relying on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court cited supra, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine that the appeal is barred by limitation for not filling appeal within the specified time and not condoning the delay. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing the section 253(3) which is as under:
“(3) Every appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed within [two months] from the end of the month in] which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the assessee or to the [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner, as the case may be:
The Samastipur District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. [provided that in respect of any appeal under clause (b) of sub-section (1), this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words “sixty days”, the words “thirty days” had been substituted.]”
On going through the above section, assessee was required to file appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the order to the assessee. However, in the case on hand the order was communicated on 12.12.2022 and appeal was filed on 20.11.2025 with a delay of 1076 days and alleged upon the professionals. We dismiss the appeal of the assessee observing that the appeal of the assessee is time barred.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 04.02.2026