ITAT Pune Applies Supreme Court Delay Principles to Reject Belated Tax Appeal

Nileshkumar Lalchand Lodha Vs Assessing Officer (ITAT Pune)

Inordinate Appeal Delay Requires Sufficient Cause: Repeated Non-Compliance Weakens the Plea for Condonation

Background

The assessee had not filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2013-14. On receiving information regarding cash deposits of ₹23 lakh in his savings bank account, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 148 on 22 April 2020. The assessment order recorded that the notice had been duly served on the assessee’s registered email address.

The assessee did not comply with the subsequent notices under section 142(1) or the show-cause notice. Consequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte under section 144 read with section 147, assessing the total income at ₹23 lakh.

The appeal before the CIT(A) was also filed belatedly. Despite three notices issued during the appellate proceedings, the assessee failed to respond, and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on 28 December 2023.

The assessee thereafter approached the Tribunal on 23 July 2026. The Tribunal recorded a delay of 827 days in filing the appeal.

Explanation for the Delay

In his condonation petition and affidavit, the assessee stated that his father was unwell and that this prevented him from filing the appeal within time.

However, no medical certificate or other evidence supporting the father’s illness was furnished. The Tribunal found the explanation vague and insufficient to establish sufficient cause for the prolonged delay.

Tribunal’s Findings

The Tribunal considered the assessee’s conduct throughout the proceedings. He had neither filed the original return nor responded to the assessment notices. Even after filing an appeal before the CIT(A), he failed to participate in the appellate proceedings. The substantial delay before the Tribunal was therefore examined against this consistent pattern of non-compliance.

The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy, Civil Appeal Nos. 8183–8184 of 2013, decided on 13 September 2013.

That decision recognises that applications for condonation should receive a liberal, pragmatic and justice-oriented consideration. However, a liberal approach must remain reasonable. Gross negligence, lack of bona fides and the litigant’s conduct are relevant considerations.

The Supreme Court also distinguished between a short delay and an inordinate delay. While a delay of a few days may warrant a more liberal approach, an inordinate delay calls for stricter scrutiny of the explanation and surrounding circumstances.

Applying these principles, the Tribunal held that the assessee had failed to demonstrate sufficient cause. The unsupported plea regarding his father’s illness, coupled with repeated non-compliance before the lower authorities, did not justify condonation.

Decision

The Tribunal refused to condone the delay of 827 days and dismissed the appeal.

The merits of the ₹23 lakh addition were not adjudicated. The dismissal rested on the failure to establish sufficient cause for filing the appeal belatedly.

Author’s Comments

A long delay is not automatically fatal, but an inadequately explained delay can be. The crucial issue is whether the circumstances relied upon credibly explain why the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed time.

Illness of a close family member may constitute sufficient cause in an appropriate case. However, merely mentioning illness, without supporting material or explaining how it prevented timely filing, may be inadequate—particularly where the delay is substantial.

A condonation petition should therefore provide a coherent chronology, relevant supporting documents and a clear connection between the circumstances pleaded and the delay. Where earlier notices have also remained unanswered, that history should be addressed candidly.

This order should not be read as laying down that family illness can never justify condonation, or that a delay of this length can never be condoned. Its conclusion rests on the vague, unsupported explanation and the assessee’s sustained non-compliance. Equally, dismissal on limitation should not be presented as a ruling that the cash deposits were substantively taxable.

Cases Discussed

• Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Others (Supreme Court) — (2013) 12 SCC 649; Civil Appeal Nos. 8183–8184 of 2013; decided on 13 September 2013. Relied upon. The Tribunal applied the Supreme Court’s principles concerning sufficient cause, reasonable and justice-oriented condonation, negligence, bona fides, litigant conduct and the stricter scrutiny appropriate to inordinate delays.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [Ld.CIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟) for AY 2013-14 on 28.12.2023, emanating from the Assessment Order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, dated 16.03.2022.

Findings and Analysis :

2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. As per the assessment order, the assessee had not filed return of income for AY 2013-14. The Assessing Officer had received information regarding cash deposits of Rs.23,00,000/- in savings bank account by the assessee. Therefore, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 22.04.2020. It is specifically mentioned that the said notice u/s 148 of the Act was duly served on the registered email id of the assessee. The, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 25.02.2021 which was not complied. Then, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 07.10.2021, 25.02.2021 and 18.01.2022 were served but were not complied. A show cause notice dated 10.02.2022 which was not complied. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer passed ex-parte order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act assessing the total income at Rs.23,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) with a delay. The Ld. CIT(A) issued notices dated 04.05.2023, 01.08.2023 and 01.11.2023, however, there was no compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before this Tribunal on 23.07.2026 against the Ld. CIT(A)‟s order dated 28.12.2023. There was a delay in filing appeal of 827 days before this Tribunal.

3. In the condonation petition, the assessee stated that the assessee‟s father was unwell and hence, the assessee could not file appeal.

4. In this case, in the earlier paragraph, we have already mentioned the basic facts which explain that the assessee had not filed return of income for AY 2013-14. There was no compliance to any of the notices issued by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. Then, the assessee belatedly filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and failed to comply any of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, these facts explain consistent not compliant approach of the assessee towards the Income Tax Proceedings. Even before us also, there is a delay of 827 days in filing of the appeal. We have studied the affidavit filed by the assessee wherein the assessee has cited the reasons that the assessee‟s father was suffering from certain illness but no evidence has been filed by the assessee regarding illness of the assessee‟s father like medical certificate etc. In From No. 36 which is Appeal Memo, the assessee under the head “Appellant‟s Personal Information” has provided email id of the Chartered Accountant. The same is scanned and reproduced here as under :

–

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee vs Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and others Civil Appeal Nos.8183-8184 of 2013 vide order dated 13/09/2013 has laid down following principles for deciding Condonation Application:

Quote, “15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are:

i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice.

ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation.

iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis.

iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of.

v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact.

vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice.

vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play.

viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation.

ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach.

x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation.

xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation.

xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception.

xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. “Unquote.
(emphasis supplied).

5.1 Thus, Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained that the Inordinate Delay warrants Strict Approach, and earlier conduct of the petitioner should be analyzed.

5.2 In this case when we apply the above mentioned Principles, the Delay in this case is Inordinate hence warrants Stricter approach. The Assessee was non-compliant even before the Commissioner of Income Tax. The reasons mentioned in the condonation petition are vague. Assessee has failed to demonstrate that there was any sufficient cause for delay.

5.3 For all the reasons discussed above, the Delay is not condoned, and appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

6. Taking into consideration totality of the facts, we are of the considered opinion that there was no sufficient cause for such inordinate delay. Hence, appeal is dismissed.

7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 08th October, 2026