- Grupo Antolin India Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune)
- The controversy
- Processing adjustments created a substantial demand
- Rectification pursued, appeal delayed
- Sufficient cause must be assessed from the explanation
- Supreme Court decisions relied upon
- Appeal restored, with directions to remain vigilant
- Author’s comments
Grupo Antolin India Private Limited Vs DCIT (ITAT Pune)
Awaiting Rectification Outcome Constitutes Sufficient Cause: ITAT Condones 635-Day Appeal Delay
The controversy
The Pune Tribunal condoned a 635-day delay in filing an appeal before the CIT(A), accepting the assessee’s explanation that it had been awaiting the outcome of its rectification application under section 154.
The CIT(A) had rejected the condonation application and dismissed the appeal as time-barred without examining the disputed adjustments. The Tribunal found sufficient cause, set aside that dismissal and restored the matter for adjudication on merits. The decision grants an opportunity to contest the demand; it does not decide whether the adjustments themselves were justified. viewOrder (63)(3)
Processing adjustments created a substantial demand
The assessee, a private limited company, filed its return for AY 2020-21, declaring income of approximately ₹31.80 crore.
The return was processed under section 143(1) by an intimation dated 24 December 2021. Certain adjustments increased the determined income to approximately ₹33.38 crore, resulting in a tax demand of ₹1.65 crore.
The Tribunal’s order does not describe the individual adjustments or examine their correctness. Its consideration was confined to whether the assessee should be permitted to pursue its delayed first appeal.
Rectification pursued, appeal delayed
The assessee challenged the intimation before the CIT(A), but the appeal was filed with a delay of 635 days.
In its condonation application, the company explained that it had been awaiting the outcome of the section 154 rectification application. It maintained that the delay was neither deliberate nor contumacious and requested admission of the appeal.
The CIT(A), however, held that sufficient cause had not been demonstrated. By an order dated 17 December 2025, the condonation application was rejected and the appeal dismissed in limine under section 249(2).
Consequently, the assessee’s objections to the processing adjustments remained unadjudicated. The company approached the Tribunal against this refusal to admit the appeal.
Sufficient cause must be assessed from the explanation
The Tribunal examined whether the circumstances leading to the delay warranted condonation.
It observed that limitation provisions serve the purpose of ensuring expeditious disposal of appeals. Nevertheless, where the delay is unintentional and arises from reasonable circumstances, condonation may be warranted in the interest of substantial justice.
The relevant consideration was therefore the acceptability of the assessee’s explanation, rather than the length of the delay viewed in isolation.
After considering the reasons furnished, the Tribunal recorded its satisfaction that the assessee had established sufficient cause. It accordingly condoned the entire 635-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
Supreme Court decisions relied upon
The Tribunal relied on Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, supporting a justice-oriented approach to condonation.
It also referred to Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, judgment dated 21 March 2025, 2025 INSC 382.
The order does not reproduce the detailed reasoning from these judgments. Its conclusion rests on its acceptance of the explanation furnished in the present case and the principle that an unintentional delay supported by sufficient cause should not prevent consideration of the dispute.
Appeal restored, with directions to remain vigilant
Since the CIT(A) had not decided the substantive grounds, the Tribunal set aside the appellate order and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal also directed the company to furnish an updated email address and contact details to receive notices through the ITBA portal.
It required the assessee to remain vigilant and avoid adjournments unless supported by reasonable cause. Thus, the fresh opportunity was accompanied by a clear expectation of cooperation.
The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The adjustments and resulting demand remain subject to examination in the restored proceedings. viewOrder (63)(3)
Author’s comments
Pursuing rectification can explain a delayed appeal, but this decision should be cited as an acceptance of sufficient cause on its facts—not as an automatic extension of appeal limitation whenever a section 154 application is filed. The Tribunal condoned the delay after considering the explanation; it did not hold that the rectification application itself suspended the appeal deadline.
For a similar condonation request, the chronology matters: when rectification was sought, what steps were taken to pursue it, and why the appeal was subsequently filed. Supporting correspondence can help demonstrate bona fide pursuit of the remedy rather than prolonged inactivity.
A drafting point also deserves attention. The order refers to section 253(5) while condoning a delay that occurred before the CIT(A). That provision concerns delayed appeals before the Tribunal; section 249(3) addresses admission of delayed first appeals. The operative relief is nevertheless explicit: the first-appeal delay was condoned and the matter restored.
The company secured a hearing on the demand—not deletion of the demand. Its substantive objections must now be examined and decided by the CIT(A).
Cases Discussed
- Inder Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 INSC 382 (Supreme Court; 21 March 2025) — Relied upon on condonation of delay; exact TaxGuru judgment page not verified.
- Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., (1987) 2 SCC 107 (Supreme Court) — Relied upon for substantial justice and sufficient cause.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2020-21 is directed against the order dated 17.12.2025 of Addl/JCIT(A)-Raipur which is arising out of Intimation Order dated 24.12.2021 passed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company and filed its return of income for A.Y. 2020-21 on 12.02.20211 declaring income of Rs.31.80 crore. Return processed u/s.143(1) of the Act determining income of Rs.33.38 crore after making certain adjustments, resulting into tax demand of Rs.1.65 crore. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal against the Intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act but with a delay of 635 days. Assessee company filed condonation application before ld.CIT(A) stating that assessee was awaiting the outcome of the Rectification application u/s.154 of the Act and delay is neither deliberate nor contumacious and prayed to condone the delay. However, ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal holding that as under :
“13. As there is no sufficient cause demonstrated for condonation of delay, the application for condonation is rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed in limine as barred by limited under section 249(2) of the Act.”
3. Now the assessee has approached the Tribunal contending that ld.CIT(A) erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay when there is ‘sufficient cause’ for not presenting the appeal in time.
4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We proceed to adjudicate whether the delay in the instant case deserves condonation.
5. There is no dispute that u/s. 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there exists a sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The explanation of the assessee therefore becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient and reasonable cause on its part in not presenting the present appeal within the prescribed time. The purpose of the limitation period is to ensure expeditious disposal of appeal; however, where the delay is shown to be unintentional and caused by reasonable circumstances, it ought to be condoned in the interest of substantial justice.
6. We have gone through the reasons which led to delay in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A) and we are satisfied that the assessee has made out a case of ‘sufficient cause’ warranting exercise of discretion u/s.253(5) of the Act. We therefore condone the delay of 635 days in filing the appeal before the ld.CIT(A) is hereby condoned and admit the appeal for adjudication placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382.
7. A perusal of impugned order reveals that ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated on merits of the case. We therefore considering the prayer made by ld. Counsel for the assessee and in the larger interest of justice set aside the impugned order dated 17.12.2025 and restore the issues raised in the instant appeal to the file of ld.CIT(A) for necessary adjudication after affording due opportunity to the assessee. Assessee is directed to provide updated email id and contact detail to the department for receiving the notices from ITBA portal. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournment unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on this 12th day of October, 2026.
