Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's premises were searched, leading to ex-parte assessments under Section 153A read with Section 144 of the Income-tax Act for multiple assessment years. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) but was unsuccessful. Subsequently, the assessee filed appeals before the ITAT with a significant delay of over 900 days.
Held
The Tribunal noted the inordinate delay in filing the appeals and emphasized that while the length of delay is not the sole factor, the sufficiency and bona fides of the explanation are crucial. The assessee's claims of unawareness of orders and lack of professional services were contradicted by evidence of communication to the provided email addresses and correspondence with the chartered accountant. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be not bona fide and lacking sufficient cause.
Key Issues
The primary legal issue was the condonation of an inordinate delay of over 900 days in filing appeals before the ITAT, specifically whether the assessee provided a 'sufficient cause' for the delay.
Sections Cited
Section 132, Section 153A, Section 144, Section 246A, Section 249, Section 250, Section 253(1), Section 253(3), Section 253(5)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, GOA
Before: HON’BLE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; The captioned four appeals are filed by the assessee u/s 253(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] which respectively impugns separate orders passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals-2, Panaji [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] anent to four assessment years as captioned [‘AYs’] which in turn ITAT-Panaji Page 1 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 dealt with respective separate assessment orders passed u/s 153C r.w.s 144 of the Act passed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji [‘Ld. AO’].
Without advancing on impugned additions & merits thereof, on rival party’s common request these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together on the limited issue of condonation of delay in instituting these appeals before Tribunal for being disposed of by this common & consolidated order.
In advancing these matters together, the first appeal for AY 2013-14 is taken as lead case, resultantly our adjudication laid in succeeding paragraphs shall mutatis-mutandis apply to remaining appeals and be read as such.
ITAT-Panaji Page 2 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 4. Briefly stated pertinent common facts for the purpose of condonation are that; 4.1 On 24/10/2017 a search & seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on the assessee and pursuant thereto vide notice 28/03/2019 the case of the assessee was subjected to re-assessment u/s 153A of the Act. In the event of non-compliance with the various notices issued u/s 153A & 142(1) of the Act, the assessment on the basis of incriminating material found & seized in the course of search, were framed for four AY 2013-14, 2016-17 to 2018-19 ex- parte to the best of judgement u/s 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Act.
4.2 Aggrieved assessee assailed the former assessment orders in an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) u/s 246A r.w.s. 249 of the Act, however remained unsuccessful. ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 4.3 Aggrieved by the orders of Ld. CIT(A) [‘impugned orders’] the assessee came in present bunch of appeals on following common grounds (except change in figures of addition); 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not granting a sufficient opportunity of hearing and thereby breaching the principle of natural justice.
2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in in confirming an addition made by the AO of Rs x,xx,xxx/- by way of undisclosed commission income.
3. The appellant craves leave to add to or amend any of the grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary.
Even if it was not been brought to notice of the bench or pleaded by the respondent Revenue, in view of the mandatory guiding principle laid down of Hon’ble Apex Court in ‘UOI Vs British India Corporation’, [2003, 9 SCC 505] it shall be judicial duty the bench to suo-motto first check the issue of ITAT-Panaji Page 4 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 limitation before travelling to merits of the case. Wherein the hon’ble lordship categorically laid out that, ‘As to the first point, the question of limitation is a mandate to the forum and, irrespective of the fact whether it was raised or not, the forum must consider and apply it, if there is no dispute on fact’. We find this view was first laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Manindra Land & Building Corporation Ltd. Vs Bhutnath Banerjee’, [AIR 1964 SC 1336] and subsequently in ‘V.M. Salgaocar & brothers vs Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao’, [2005, 4 SCC 613] following which the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir reiterated the same guidelines/directions in the case of ‘Abdul Gani Ganie & Anrs Vs Habibullah Ganie’ [2025 Latest Caselaw 2244 J&K/2]. In view of former judicial precedents, we accordingly advanced on the issue of law of limitation first.
ITAT-Panaji Page 5 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 6. In the present bunch of four appeals as we note that, the assessment order u/s 153A r.w.s. 144 of the Act for AY 2013-14 & 2016-17 to 2018-19 were successively passed on 20/12/2019, 22/12/2019, 22/12/2019 and 30/12/2019. These four assessments were challenged by the appellant u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) on 23/01/2019. The Ld. CIT(A) disposed of those appeals of the assessee u/s 250 of the Act ex-parte on merits respectively on 14/03/2022, 14/03/2022, 11/03/2022 and 14/03/2022 and the Revenue claimed to have communicated these impugned orders on even date. The present bunch of appeals thereagainst however are instituted u/s 253(1) of the Act on 18/11/2024 [date on receipt of appeal as endorsed by the Registry]. The registry of the Tribunal endorsed the appeal with delay of 902 days in instituting before ITAT-Panaji Page 6 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 Tribunal, whereas the appellant assessee in all the documents claimed to have instituted these appeals with a delay of 920 days (approx.) from the expiry of period of limitation in terms of pre-amended provision of s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act.
In terms of pre-amended provisions of s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act, every appeal u/s 253(1) or 253(2) of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal is required to be filed ‘within sixty days of the date on which order sought be appealed is communicated to the assessee’. W.e.f. 01/10/2024 the period of limitation amended to ‘two months from the end of the month in which order sought to be appealed is communicated to the assessee’. This appeal since filed on 18/11/2024 i.e., instituted post amendment, therefore delay was to be computed with reference to time limit of ‘two months’ instead of ‘sixty days.
ITAT-Panaji Page 7 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 8. In view of above, rival parties have concertedly recomputed 902 days delay. Taking note thereof, we advanced to vouch reasons there behind & sufficiency thereof on the strength of material placed on records, vehement rival arguments advanced and case laws relied upon.
The appellant tried to explain the reason behind delay in filing the present appeals and sufficiency thereof by way of affidavit dt. 18/11/2024, however the contents lacked full details and reasoning. Therefore, the appellant revised contents & narration vide second affidavit dt. 15/10/2025. The sum and substance of such contents narrated in the former affidavits; submission made in the course of hearing were directed exclusively in seeking condonation of delay on twofold premise viz; (i) that the appellant was unaware of passing of impugned orders and (ii)
ITAT-Panaji Page 8 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 the appellant was displaced with effective professional services. In support that the former twofold premise jointly & severally forms a sufficient- cause for delay condonation the Ld. AR placed reliance on catena of judicial precedent specifically ‘M/s Bhagwati Colonizer Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO’ [ITA No 169/Asr/2015], ‘Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) Vs ACIT’ [2019, 112 Taxmann.com 134 (SC)],‘Basawaraj & Anr Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer’ [AIR 2014 SC 746].
Au contraire, Ld. DR submitted that, at the threshold these appeals are filed with inordinate delay of 902 days. May it be so; however, the length of delay can never be sole factor in deciding as to whether it is condonable or not, but the explicit cause & sufficiency thereof together does. In dismantling the twin premises of the appellant, the Ld. DR drawn ITAT-Panaji Page 9 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 our attention to paper book dt. 21/01/2026 placed on record by the Revenue and submitted that, for the years under consideration the assessee filed first appeals in time immediately after the assessment orders were passed. The Ld. CIT(A) upon their institution invariable forwarded multiple hearing notices and consequential impugned orders and those were duly communicated to the email-id given in Form No 35 at point no 17 i.e. babu@holidaysingoa.in and additionally to above on AFYPG6880K1973@SJKAMAT.COM as well. We also note that, the copies were also forwarded physically through post to the registered address of the assessee, which however returned by the postal authorities. Therefore, upto present proceedings it was well within the knowledge of the assessee because not only notices but also the impugned ITAT-Panaji Page 10 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 orders were duly communicated as per form 35. Insofar as the second foundation laid by assessee in seeking delay condonation is concerned, adverting to email communication between assessee & its chartered account CY Ramani who was then engaged for appeal/litigation service (place on pg 4-5 of assessee paper book dt. 01/12/2025) the Ld. DR tried to rip the appellant’s claim to pieces by submitting that, by such email CY Ramani confirmed to have forwarded all email communication relating hearing & passing of impugned orders to the assessee immediately upon their receipt. While concluding the arguments the Ld. DR further submitted that, in this case of the assessee a search was undertaken and since then assessee is monitoring all the consequential proceedings as it can be seen as how first appeals were filed in time but so far as ITAT-Panaji Page 11 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 compliance is concerned the appellant opted out from complying with the notices calling for filing of return u/s 153A, assessment notices, notices issued in the first appellate proceedings etc. The delay in filing thus was seemingly on such account therefore is not much less than deliberate. The plea of the assessee thus not bonafide and no reasons indeed proved with evidential material. For the reasons the Revenue strongly objects the condonation and therefore prays for dismissal in limine as these appeals are time barred with inordinate delay.
Heard the rival party’s common submission on the limited issue of delay condonation and subject to rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [‘ITAT-Rules’] perused the material placed on record and considered the pertinent facts in the light of settled position of law which were also forewarned. ITAT-Panaji Page 12 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 12. Before we advance to vouch the cause claimed to be sufficient cause in relation to delay of 902 days (approx.) in instituting the present bunch of appeals it is essential to quote well accepted principal by the Hon’ble Courts that the true length of delay is no matter, the acceptability of explanation is the only criteria in vouching ‘sufficiency of cause/reasons’ as the primary function of quasi-judicial authority is to adjudicate dispute between parties to advance substantial justice. Therefore, there may be inordinate delay but if supported with sufficient cause/reason, then such delay irrespective of its length qualifies for condonation and vice-versa an insignificant delay unsupported by ‘sufficient cause/reasons’ is not forgivable. So, in true sense, not the number but text of explanation is determinative in the matter of condonation of delay, ITAT-Panaji Page 13 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 and it is worthy to note the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide para 15 summarized the same in ‘Basawaraj & Anr Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer’ [AIR 2014 SC 746] as (which was also relied by rival parties);
‘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 violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamount to showing utter disregard to the legislature’. (Emphasis supplied) ITAT-Panaji Page 14 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 13. As stated earlier, the present appeals are filed with inordinate delay of 902 days (approx.) beyond the applicable statutory time period, hence are time barred in terms of s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. The admission of these appeals therefore in view provisions of s/s (5) of section 253 of the Act, are subject to satisfying fourfold pre-requirement which are dilated as; (i) the delay is to be supported by an application/petition and (ii) the delay also is to be supported by an affidavit explaining reasons behind such delay and (iii) such reason stated in affidavit must form ‘sufficient cause’ for delay requested for condonation and (iv) satisfactory explanation with the support of reasonable cogent evidence/s that such ‘sufficient cause’ indeed prevented the appellant or petition from filing the appeal by the time limit prescribed under the provisions of law.
ITAT-Panaji Page 15 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 14. At the outset we are of the considered view that in ensuring the larger interest of justice, the fulfilment of former first two pre-conditions may be seen as formal procedure while dealing with condonation prayer and as such not to be vouched with iron-cast approach in view ‘Raheem Shah & ANR Vs Govind Singh & Ors’ [2023, LiveLaw (SC) 572]. Any shortcoming in documents and insufficiency in explanation in seeking condonation the petitioner/applicant deserves reasonable opportunity as a matter of natural justice. Therefore, treating all such procedural aspect as secondary & subordinate in seeking condonation, what is in our view enormously vital for condonation of delay is that the petitioner proves to the satisfaction that; (i) there was a sufficient cause and (ii) such cause prevented him from filing the present appeals in time.
ITAT-Panaji Page 16 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 15. Although we did not hear the matter on merits of additions etc., but for the sake of delay condonation the facts of the case narrated by the appellant and solidified by the Revenue we noted that; the appellant assessee is an individual and has been regular in filing the return of income [‘ITR’] online using email- id & mobile for return related communications. In the case of the assessee a search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out and consequential assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 153A of the Act was framed on the basis of incrementing material to the best of judgement owning to appellant’s failure to comply with notices including show cause notice and further failure to adduce documents in support of claim in dismantling the adverse findings notified by the Ld. AO and explanation therefore. Thus, in assessment proceedings the appellant did not participate at all.
ITAT-Panaji Page 17 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 16. Though the assessment orders were challenged in time before the Ld. CIT(A), however hearing notices issued were neither attended nor replied. The appellant’s failure continued and therefore no hearing notices were replied and further no documents/evidence were adduced in support of ground of appeal raised before Ld. CIT(A) and no explanation whatsoever made available for the purpose of adjudication of appeals. In the event first appellate proceedings were also culminated ex-parte on the basis of material available on record. Thus, the appellant did not participate in second stage tax proceedings also. The conjoint consideration of material placed upto the stage of filing present appeals prima-face suggest that the appellant had mindfully chosen not to represent before the tax authorities below for no bonafide reasons.
ITAT-Panaji Page 18 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 17. In this factual background we now advanced to vouch the reasons behind the delay, sufficiency thereof and circumstance which prevented the appellant from filing the present appeal owning to such reasons.
Sufficient Cause: 18. In the instant appeals, the substantial 902 days delay claimed to have been occurred owning to two bullet reasons; (a) appellant’s unawareness of impugned orders and (b) delayed communication of impugned orders owning to deficient service from the professional to whom the appellant engaged into.
(a) appellant’s unawareness of impugned orders 19. The combine reading of application/petition for condonation of delay and two affidavits dt. 18/11/2024 & 15/10/2025 suggest that the appellant was completely unaware of passing of ITAT-Panaji Page 19 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 impugned orders and thus contends owning to such reasons the present appeal could not be filed in time.
On verification of record, it revealed otherwise and we say so because from the appeal memo Form No 36 filed on 14/11/2024 in the instant appeals, the appellant vide information filled at point 3 himself confirmed to have been communicated/received the impugned orders from the Revenue on the very same day when they were passed by the Ld. CIT(A). As far as the communication by Ld. CIT(A) is concerned, while filing appeal before first appellate authority u/s 246A r.w.s. 249 of the Act, the appellant assessee in Form No 35 mindfully opted for communication of notices & orders through email. As corroborative evidence submitted by the Revenue, Pg-1 to 45 to letter dt. 21/01/2026 we find that, pursuant to such opting, Ld. CIT(A) addressed all communication ITAT-Panaji Page 20 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 through email not only to the appellant directly on babu@holidaysingoa.in but also to the appellant’s consultant/advocate on AFYPG6880K1973@SJKAMAT.COM. And it shall be apposite to state that, the Ld. AR could hardly unsolidified the aforestated evidential documents with any deprecative material and explanation.
Further the Revenue’s submission that the physical copy of impugned orders were indeed forwarded through registered speed post to the registered address of the appellant (as quoted in Form No 35) were confirmed to been returned owning to change in the address by the appellant, thus no inaction against Revenue can be alleged. Thus, in our view the Revenue dismantled first premise of appellant in seeking condonation which the appellant on the other hand could hardly repudiate.
ITAT-Panaji Page 21 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 22. It is also necessary to state that, the fact of passing impugned orders by communication as well as made available by placing on web-portal was well within the due knowledge of the appellant because, for filing returns each time the appellant assessee must have accessed the web-portal. There is much less material on record to prove otherwise. For all the former reasons we are in complete agreement with settled position of law that when holistic approach is applied in adjudicating delay, the procedural aspect may not always be impelled through binocular parallax else the approach may defeat very purpose of larger interest of justice. As it may be, however vouching of reason shall not however turn blind eye to the factual inaccuracy like the one in the present case where it is apparently & very much discernible on the face of the record.
ITAT-Panaji Page 22 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 23. Now coming to reliance placed by the appellant on Ld. Co-ordinate bench in ‘M/s Bhagwati Colonizer Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO’ (supra) wherein the facts of the case were that; divisional bench of the Tribunal although allowed appeal on merits but insofar as the delay of 570 days was concerned, Ld. Accountant member in limine dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Per contra Ld. Judicial member while agreeing with allowing the appeal on merits took dissenting view on limitation by condoning the delay with a cost. The Ld. Third member in view of the Hon’ble Madaras High Court decision rendered in ‘Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd. Vs CIT’ [2003, 131 Taxman 833) settled the dissent holding that advancing on merits presupposes the condonation of delay (if any). In the present case, the Revenue with the unwavering evidence proved contrary to the effect that impugned orders were ITAT-Panaji Page 23 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 indeed communicated in time as against the claim of the appellant and since the hearing never advanced on merits, therefore, the reliance finds misplaced by the appellant. Since fact that the Revenue not only objected the condonation fervently but also inspiringly rebutted the existence of bonafide as claimed by the appellant, therefore reliance placed on ‘Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) Vs ACIT’ (supra), could hardly be applied to the present case.
Further the reliance placed by the appellant on the decision of ‘Basawaraj & Anr Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer’ (supra) on the contrary goes against the appellant as no evidence or much evidence placed before us to showcase the appellant to have acted diligently or remained active in any manner right from the initiation of assessment proceedings till filing of present bunch of appeals. ITAT-Panaji Page 24 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 25. In view thereof, since the impugned orders were communicated to the appellant on the very same day when they were passed and it was well within the knowledge of appellant, therefore ratio laid in ‘Meda Raja Kishor Raghuramy Reddy Vs ACIT’ [160 taxmann.com 416 (Panaji-Tribunal)] and ‘Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) Vs ACIT’ [2019, 112 Taxmann.com 134 (SC)], could hardly be of any help to the appellant.
(b) delayed communication of impugned orders owning to deficient service from the professional to whom the appellant engaged into.
At the outset we find much less bonafide imputables in this later reason claimed to have prevented the appellant from filing the present bunch of four appeals in time as per s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. We say so for twin reasons; (i) firstly the ITAT-Panaji Page 25 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 impugned orders as held hereinbefore were already communicated to the appellant on the email-id opted in Form No 35 (appeal memo) and thus appellant had effective notice of such communication and (ii) secondly as obvious from the email reply of CY Ramani chartered accountant who confirmed to the assessee that as and when emails from Revenue were received same were immediately forwarded to him. We find that, there was lot less inaction on the part of consultant who was engaged by the appellant in assisting him for first appellate proceedings. Therefore, the claim of the appellant did fail to inspire any confidence to treat this reason as ‘sufficient cause’ for the purpose of condonation of delay.
It was principal responsibility of the appellant to remain vigilant and ensure proper compliance including filing of appeal in time. By merely engaging ITAT-Panaji Page 26 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 the consultant or advocate the appellant cannot absolve himself from statutory duties, procedural non-compliance, or delays as is seen in present case.
Thus, neither the former reason nor the later reasons stated by the appellant in seeking condonation could actually in our considered view prevented the appellant from filing the present bunch of appeal within the period of limitation. Therefore, we and not inclined to condone the inordinate delay of 902 days occurred in filing the present bunch of appeals. In this context we note that, in the case of ‘Anshul Agarwal Vs New Okhla Industrial Development Authority [2011, 14 SCC 578,] the hon’ble Apex Court held that the reason provided for the delay must be something beyond the individual's control that prevented them from approaching the Court. ITAT-Panaji Page 27 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 29. Further in vouching ‘sufficiency’ of reasons it is apt to highlight core principles culled out by the Hon'ble Apex court in ‘Esha Bhattacharjee Vs Managing committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Ors’ reported in [2013, 9 SCR 782 (SC)]; (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 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 notion that Courts are required to condone delay on bedrock of 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. (Emphasis supplied) ITAT-Panaji Page 28 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 30. To sum-up from the material placed on record and submission advanced in the course of hearing by the appellant assessee, there is much less about non- receipt or belated receipt of impugned orders, belated filing of consequential present appeals, reasons there behind, sufficiency of such reasons and explanation as to how such reasons prevented the appellant from filing the present appeal within the statutory timelines of s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. In view thereof, the lifeline provided u/s (5) (supra) fails to assist appellant’s case. Per contra the Revenue was successful in dismantling the appellant’s both the claims with cogent evidence. Thus, in our thoughtful consideration the appellant failed to establish cause rather much less cause in preventing him from approaching the Tribunal in time s/s (1) r.w.s. (3) r.w.s. (5) (supra).
ITAT-Panaji Page 29 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 31. Insofar as the delay in instituting the present appeal is concerned, a careful contemplation of records reveals us that, there is neither any plausible explanation nor any whisper in the entire narration of facts about a single step taken by the appellant to showcase required seriousness, and not even a bonafied affirmation that delay was accidental. We also observed that, neither through such affidavits nor by any other document/petition or application the appellant could demonstrate to our even a primary satisfaction that there was a ‘sufficient cause’ or ‘sufficient reason’ behind such inordinate delay which prevented him from filing the appeal within the time limit allowed u/s 253(3) of the Act. In the premise of our aforestated observation, the appellant did initiate no action. Thus, appellant failed to show that the said delay was undeliberate.
ITAT-Panaji Page 30 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 32. Per contra, the appellant has not proved any inaction or negligence on the part of a Revenue, much less have they pleaded any action or vigilance on their own part. Thus, in our thoughtful consideration the appellant failed to make out a case that there was sufficient cause behind delay in filing these present appeals and as it remained not only negligent but nor did initiate any steps at all. The prayer for condonation therefore seems to have been made as matter of right and we say so because the averments made in the affidavit sorely lack bonafied imputable.
While deciding condonation of delay in the present bunch of appeals we are also mindful to the conduct, behaviour, laxity attitude of the appellant and sheer negligence towards prosecution of tax proceedings right from the search action u/s 132 of the Act which cannot be given a total go-bye. ITAT-Panaji Page 31 of 32
Chittibabu Ghanta Vs ACIT, Panaji to 281/PAN/2024 34. In view of aforestated observations and the parameter set in judicial precedents cited (supra) and ‘Vijay V Meghani Vs. DCIT & Anr’ [2017, 398 ITR 250 (Bom)] and ‘Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Anr. Vs Ms Katiji and Others’ [1987, 167 ITR 5 (SC)] we are mindful to hold that, twin reasons stated & averments made in support of delay per-se failed to prove existence of sufficient cause, therefore all pleas made therein & grounds contended in seeking condonation stands rejected. Thus, these appeals are not admitted for adjudication, and in consequence stands dismissed.
In result, these four appeals are DISMISSED. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 the order pronounced in the open court on date mentioned hereinbefore.