“AO Was Busy” Not Enough – Bangalore ITAT Refuses to Condone 507-Day Delay by Income Tax Department

DCIT Vs Chikkamariyappa Girish (ITAT Bangalore)

“AO Was Busy” Not Enough – Bangalore ITAT Refuses to Condone 507-Day Delay by Income Tax Department

The Bangalore ITAT dismissed the Revenue’s appeal itself after refusing to condone an enormous delay of 507 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal held that merely stating that the Assessing Officer was busy with assessment work and compliances does not constitute “sufficient cause” under section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act.

The Department had challenged an appellate order deleting substantive and protective additions. However, though the CIT(A)’s order was received on 27.05.2024, the appeal before the Tribunal was filed only on 19.12.2025. When questioned regarding limitation, the AO filed a condonation petition stating that the office was substantially occupied with assessment proceedings, documentation and coordination work, and therefore the appeal could not be filed within time.

The ITAT found the explanation completely vague and lacking particulars. The Tribunal observed that the condonation application merely contained general statements that the AO was busy with assessment proceedings but did not explain specifically why such extraordinary delay of 507 days occurred or how it constituted sufficient cause.

The Bench categorically held that routine workload and office pressure cannot automatically justify enormous delay in filing appeals. Since the Department failed to establish any genuine or convincing reason for the delay, the Tribunal declined to admit the appeal itself and dismissed it as time-barred.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE

This appeal is filed by the Department against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-11 dated 17-May-2024 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer [AO] was allowed wherein the issue was that the substantive addition in the hands of the assessee and protective addition in the case of Smt. Sharada were deleted, prior to the conclusion of the finality of the protective addition.

2. The appellate order was passed on 17.5.2024 which was received by the ld. AO on 27.5.2024, however the appeal was filed on 19.12.2025. The defect notice was issued to the ld. AO by the Registry on 19.12.2025 that the appeal is time barred by 506 days.

3. The ld. AO has filed an application for condonation of delay. The reasons shown by the ld. AO is that his office was substantially occupied with proceedings and compliances arising out of the assessment provisions, which required immediate attention and involved extensive preparation, documentation and coordination. Hence, owing to the substantial time and resources devoted to the said assessment proceedings, the filing of the present appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal could not be attended to within the prescribed period and therefore the delay of 507 days may be condoned. The limitation Certificate dated 15.12.2025 directed the AO to file the appeal.

4. The ld. DR reiterated the same reasons for delay in filing of the appeal.

5. We have perused the provisions of section 253(5) of the Act wherein the Tribunal may admit the appeal after the expiry of limitation period, if it is satisfied that there was a sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period. On perusal of the application for condonation of delay, we find that the ld. AO has merelygiven general reasons and did not say why there is a delay of 507 days and if it was so it is for sufficient cause. The petition says as under:-

“The appellate order of the CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru was received on 27.05.2024. This office was substantially occupied with proceedings and compliances arising out of the assessment provisions, which required immediate attention and involved extensive preparation, documentation and coordination. Hence, owing to the substantial time and resources devoted to the said assessment proceedings, the filing of the present appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal could not be attended to within the prescribed period.”

6. Merely mentioning the fact that the AO was busy with assessment proceedings and therefore there is a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal as he could not attend the appellate work within time does not inspire any confidence to say that there is a sufficient cause for delay in filing of the appeal.

7. Accordingly the appeal of the Revenue is not admitted and is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21st May, 2026.