Papaiah Pulipati Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad, dismissed appeals filed by Papaiah Pulipati due to an inordinate delay of over ten years in approaching the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The appeals related to Assessment Years (AY) 2010-11 and 2011-12 were delayed by 10 years, 10 months, and 19 days, and 11 years, 3 months, and 5 days, respectively. The appellant also faced a further delay of 35 and 50 days in filing appeals before the ITAT. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee failed to provide a valid day-to-day explanation for the prolonged delay.
Tribunal’s Observations on Condonation of Delay
The ITAT considered the principles governing condonation of delay in taxation matters. The tribunal distinguished between normal delays, which can be condoned in the interest of justice, and inordinate delays, which require substantial justification. Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, condonation is granted only when a “sufficient cause” is demonstrated. Since the assessee failed to provide a valid explanation, the ITAT concluded that there was no reasonable basis to allow the appeal.
Supreme Court Precedent on Delay Condonation
The tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) v. Special Deputy Collector, LA (SLP (Civil) No. 31248/2018, dated 08.04.2024). In that case, the Supreme Court refused to condone a delay of five to six years in filing an appeal before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, emphasizing that excessive delays without sufficient cause cannot be condoned merely in the interest of justice. Given that the delay in Pulipati’s case was even longer, the ITAT applied the same legal principle and dismissed the appeals.
