Subject: Delay of 4 Months in Filing Appeal before CIT(A) in Sec 144 Case - Condonation & Further Remedies (PCIT / ITAT / Writ)

[Fahiyaz Ahmmed]

Dear Experts,

In one of my cases, the assessee received multiple notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2), however due to non-compliance and lack of proper guidance, no replies were filed.

The Assessing Officer subsequently passed a Best Judgment Assessment order under section 144 (r.w.s. 144B) in December 2025, making substantial additions on account of unexplained cash/bank transactions.

There is now a delay of approximately 4 months in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).

I seek your expert guidance on the following:

1. Whether a delay of around 4 months can generally be condoned by CIT(A) if a proper condonation petition showing sufficient cause is filed?
2. What constitutes 'sufficient cause' in cases involving non-compliance of notices?
3. If the CIT(A) rejects the condonation application and dismisses the appeal in limine:
   • Can the assessee file an appeal before ITAT against such dismissal?
   • Is ITAT empowered to condone the delay or restore the matter?
4. Alternatively, can the assessee approach the PCIT under section 264 for revision in such circumstances?
   • Whether revision u/s 264 is advisable when the appeal route has been delayed or rejected?
5. Whether filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 before the Hon'ble Odisha High Court is maintainable in such a case, particularly on grounds of violation of principles of natural justice?
6. Kindly share any relevant judicial precedents where:
   • Delay was condoned despite non-compliance, OR
   • Higher authorities (ITAT / High Court) provided relief when CIT(A) rejected condonation.

As per settled principles, courts have held that 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally where delay is bona fide and not intentional.

Kindly guide on the most practical and legally sustainable course of action in this situation.

Thanking you in advance.

Regards

[YAGAY andSUN]

A delay of ~4 months in filing appeal before CIT(A) is ordinarily condonable u/s 249(3), if supported by a credible "sufficient cause." Courts emphasize that quality of explanation prevails over length of delay.

Sufficient cause (in non-compliance cases):

Acceptable grounds include lack/change of professional advice, illness, financial hardship, technical issues in faceless proceedings, or genuine misunderstanding/non-receipt of notices. However, mere negligence or inaction is insufficient. The petition must contain a clear chronology, reasons for non-response to notices u/s 142(1)/143(2), and an affidavit showing bona fide intent.

If CIT(A) rejects condonation:

Such dismissal in limine is appealable before ITAT u/s 253. ITAT can:

• Re-examine "sufficient cause"

• Condone delay independently

• Restore the appeal to CIT(A) or decide on merits

Revision u/s 264 (PCIT):

Available as an alternative, subject to limitation and provided no appeal is pending. It is discretionary and less robust than appellate remedy. Prefer appeal route; use revision as fallback.

Writ under Article 226 (e.g., Orissa High Court):

Maintainable in exceptional cases-e.g., mechanical rejection, non-consideration of explanation, or breach of natural justice. Generally avoided where ITAT remedy exists.

Judicial support:

• Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji - 1987 (2) TMI 61 - Supreme Court - liberal approach to condonation

• N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy - 1998 (9) TMI 602 - Supreme Court - delay length immaterial if bona fide

• ITAT rulings (e.g., Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) v. ACIT - 2009 (2) TMI 894 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) - preference for adjudication on merits

Practical course:

1. File appeal before CIT(A) with detailed condonation petition + affidavit.

2. If rejected, appeal to ITAT.

3. Consider 264 revision only as backup.

A well-drafted petition demonstrating bona fide conduct and arguable merits significantly improves chances of condonation.

[Fahiyaz Ahmmed]

Thanks, sir, for your guidance

AI Summary

Condonation of appeal delay depends on sufficient cause, and ITAT may reconsider rejection of the condonation request. A delay of about four months in filing an appeal before CIT(A) is ordinarily capable of condonation if supported by a credible explanation showing sufficient cause. In cases involving non-compliance with notices under sections 142(1) and 143(2), the explanation should set out the chronology, reasons for non-response, and material showing bona fide conduct. Mere negligence or unexplained inaction is not enough, but lack of advice, illness, hardship, technical issues, or genuine non-receipt may support condonation.