619–650 Days’ Income Tax Appeal Delay Not Condoned Due to Negligence: ITAT Raipur

Tejindar Rana Vs DCIT (ITAT Raipur)

Summary: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Raipur SMC Bench, dismissed four income-tax appeals filed by Tejindar Rana and Bindu Thakur after refusing to condone substantial delays ranging from 619 to 650 days. In its common order pronounced on 27 October 2026, Judicial Member Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury held that the assessees had failed to establish sufficient and bona fide reasons for approaching the Tribunal considerably beyond the prescribed limitation period. Although the appellants relied on financial difficulties, bank recovery proceedings, search and seizure action, enforcement measures under the SARFAESI Act and judicial precedents favouring a liberal approach to condonation, the Tribunal found that these circumstances did not adequately explain their prolonged inaction. Consequently, all four appeals were dismissed as barred by limitation, without examination of the underlying assessment disputes.

Background of the Four Income Tax Appeals

The proceedings involved three appeals filed by Tejindar Rana for Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, registered as ITA Nos. 674, 675 and 676/RPR/2026, respectively. The fourth appeal, ITA No. 678/RPR/2026, was filed by Bindu Thakur for Assessment Year 2017-18. All four appeals were directed against orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Raipur-3, dated 4 September 2024 and 8 October 2024, as applicable to the respective proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the appellants belonged to the same business group. The delay in Bindu Thakur’s appeal was 619 days, while each of Tejindar Rana’s three appeals was delayed by 650 days. Because the explanations were substantially common, the Tribunal considered the condonation requests together and reproduced the supporting affidavit filed in Bindu Thakur’s case.

The central issue was not the correctness of the underlying tax assessments. Rather, the preliminary question was whether the circumstances described in the affidavits constituted sufficient cause to excuse the exceptionally late filing of the appeals. Unless the delay was condoned, the Tribunal could not proceed to examine the substantive grounds.

Assessees’ Explanation: Financial Crisis and Recovery Proceedings

The appellants attributed their inability to file appeals within time to a series of adverse developments affecting their business group. According to the affidavit, a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had taken place on 15 January 2019 at residential and business premises associated with the group. The affidavit also referred to a search assessment order under Section 153A dated 29 September 2021.

Thereafter, the group allegedly faced serious financial difficulties. The Union Bank of India reportedly recalled loan accounts on 27 January 2022 after they became non-performing assets. Enforcement proceedings and notices under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, followed during 2022 and 2024. The affidavit mentioned possession notices, property sale notices and e-auction proceedings involving secured assets.

Additional developments included possession-related action in September and October 2024, notices for sale of secured immovable properties, proceedings before the District Revenue Court, Raipur, during March 2025, termination of group-company work orders in May 2025 and further bank recovery measures in July 2025.

The assessees maintained that these events caused severe financial and operational disruption across the business group. They presented the circumstances as unavoidable obstacles that prevented timely pursuit of their appellate remedies. The Tribunal recorded these explanations as the appellants’ submissions; it did not accept them as sufficient justification for the entire delay.

Reliance on Supreme Court’s Liberal Approach to Condonation

The appellants relied particularly on Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs ITO (Supreme Court), decided on 31 January 2025. In that matter, the Supreme Court had interfered with the rejection of an income-tax appeal involving a 166-day delay and emphasised the need for a justice-oriented and liberal approach where the circumstances justified condonation.

The appellants argued that procedural delay should not defeat substantive justice where there was no mala fide intention. They also referred to a separate case involving Hanumant Construction Pvt. Ltd., another company connected with the group, in which the Raipur Bench had reportedly condoned a delay of 384 days by an order dated 6 February 2026.

Further reliance was placed on decisions attributed in the affidavit to the Chhattisgarh High Court, including matters involving the Block Education Officer, Krishna Kumar Nathani & Sons (HUF), Pradeep Kumar Khandelwal and Vineet Singh. The delays mentioned in these cases ranged from 17 days to 383/384 days. The appellants submitted that these authorities supported condonation where the explanation was reasonable and bona fide.

In substance, their argument was that the financial distress and enforcement proceedings should be evaluated alongside the judicial preference for resolving tax disputes on merits. They requested the Tribunal to condone the delays and admit the appeals for substantive adjudication.

ITAT Raipur Finds No Sufficient Explanation for Prolonged Inaction

The Tribunal rejected the condonation requests. It acknowledged that the appellants had described bank recovery action and financial difficulties but questioned why persons associated with an established business group could not comply with the statutory time limit for filing appeals.

The Tribunal referred specifically to the group’s connection with Hanumant Construction Pvt. Ltd. and UBB Infrastructure Ltd. It observed that the persons associated with these businesses could reasonably be expected to understand legal compliance obligations and the procedures necessary to pursue appellate remedies.

In the Tribunal’s assessment, the explanations did not establish why filing the appeals itself had remained impossible or impracticable for more than 600 days. Financial distress, recovery notices and related litigation were not treated as automatically sufficient grounds for condonation. The decisive deficiency was the absence of a convincing explanation connecting those circumstances with the failure to file the appeals within the prescribed period.

The Tribunal characterised the appellants’ conduct as gross negligence and found that they had failed to exercise their appellate rights with reasonable diligence. It further held that the circumstances did not demonstrate bona fide conduct warranting the exercise of discretion in their favour.

Supreme Court Decisions Applied by the Tribunal

While examining the applicable judicial principles, the Tribunal referred to H. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs A. Krishnaiah (since deceased) through Legal Representatives, Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025, decided on 8 January 2025. It noted the Supreme Court’s guidance that an application for condonation must be examined independently before the merits of the underlying dispute are considered.

According to the principle discussed in the order, the court must first evaluate the bona fides of the explanation offered by the applicant. A litigant who has lost the opportunity to obtain adjudication on merits because of prolonged inaction cannot automatically obtain relief merely by invoking substantial justice.

The Tribunal also relied on Thirunagalingam Vs Lingeswaran & Anr., arising from SLP (C) No. 17575 of 2023. It referred to the Supreme Court’s emphasis that delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity. The explanation must be bona fide, and negligence by the applicant remains an important consideration.

Another authority discussed was State of Orissa Vs Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 161. The Tribunal cited this decision for the distinction between a liberal judicial approach and the indiscriminate forgiveness of negligent delay.

Finally, the Tribunal referred to Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 361, while considering the requirement that a party seeking discretionary relief must provide a satisfactory explanation. Applying these principles collectively, it concluded that the assessees had failed to establish sufficient cause.

Why the Tribunal Declined to Follow the Condonation Examples

The order illustrates that earlier decisions condoning delay do not automatically require the same result in every subsequent case. Although the appellants cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Vidya Shankar Jaiswal and other favourable examples, the Tribunal assessed the particular explanation presented in the four appeals before it.

The Tribunal considered the prolonged delay, the appellants’ familiarity with business and legal processes, and the absence of an adequate explanation for their failure to act. It also referred to the potential prejudice to the Revenue if limitation requirements were disregarded merely because the underlying appeals might otherwise warrant consideration.

The decision therefore turned on the Tribunal’s evaluation of diligence, bona fides and sufficient cause, rather than a general rule that financial distress can never justify condonation. Whether a different factual record would support relief was not decided in this order.

Final Decision: All Four Appeals Dismissed as Time-Barred

The ITAT Raipur Bench ultimately refused to condone the delay of 619 days in ITA No. 678/RPR/2026 and the delays of 650 days each in ITA Nos. 674, 675 and 676/RPR/2026. Accordingly, the appeals relating to Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2017-18 were dismissed as barred by limitation.

Importantly, the Tribunal expressly declined to examine the merits of the underlying assessment disputes. The order therefore does not determine whether the disputed additions, assessments or other substantive tax positions were legally sustainable.

The practical significance of the ruling is that a taxpayer seeking condonation must establish a credible connection between the circumstances relied upon and the actual failure to file within time. Documentary evidence of financial hardship or parallel litigation may support an application, but it does not necessarily establish sufficient cause unless the explanation adequately addresses the delay itself. The decision also underscores the importance of preserving appellate remedies promptly, even when a taxpayer or business group is simultaneously dealing with serious financial or recovery proceedings.

Cases Discussed

• Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs Income Tax Officer — Supreme Court, SLP (C) Nos. 26310–26311/2024, decided 31.01.2025: relied upon by assessees in support of a justice-oriented approach to condonation.
• H. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs A. Krishnaish (deceased) through LRs — Supreme Court, Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2025, dated 08.01.2025: bona fides of the delay explanation must be assessed before merits.
• Thirunagalingam Vs Lingeswaran & Anr. — Supreme Court, arising from SLP (C) No. 17575/2023: delay cannot be excused as an act of generosity where negligence is evident.
• State of Orissa Vs Managing Committee of Namatara Girls High School — Supreme Court, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 161: liberal consideration does not excuse negligent delay.
• Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd. — Supreme Court, AIR 1962 SC 361: relied upon concerning sufficient cause and diligence.