TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 875
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch case. That so far as the present case is concerned, why the adjournment is rejected, will further being explained and explored in this order in the subsequent paragraphs. 3. Coming to the appeal in ITA No.137/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2013-14, there is delay of 12 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Sr. DR confirmed the same and this fact of delay is established from Form 36. That after perusal of the documents on record and on hearing submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR, the said delay of 12 days is condoned following the ratio laid down in the judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors, reported in 167 ITR 471 (SC); (ii) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos................./2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310-26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025; (iii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iv) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No............/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025. 4. That so far as merits of the case is c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ba (supra) are extracted as follows: "2. At the very outset, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of huge inordinate delay in filing appeal of the assessee before the said authority. There is delay of 9 years and 233 days for filing the appeal by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC after considering the submissions of the assessee regarding condonation of the said inordinate delay, had dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that reasons for the said delay were explained before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC a/w. affidavit filed and therefore, once explanations were furnished, the number of days of delay is immaterial. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and submitted that there has been no evidence brought on record by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee to substantiate such huge delay nor sufficient cause for such condonation has been brought out and such huge delay in filing an appeal itself shows that the assessee is negligent. In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... balanced and on a careful examination of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the action of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for not condoning such huge, unreasonable and inordinate delay in absence of bonafideness of the assessee falls within the umbrella of justice oriented approach so to clearly spell out that in order to balance scales of justice negligent assessee shall not be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnaish since deceased by Lrs, CIVIL APPEAL No. 317 of 2025 (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.9719/2020), dated 08.01.2025 has held that while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It had further observed that once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is identical and similar as were there in ITA No.137/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2013-14. In this case, there is delay of 24 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal and the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee while not condoning the delay of 9 years by the assessee to move the rectification petition and hence, the appeal was dismissed. Since the facts and circumstances of the appeal in ITA No.140/RPR/2026 for. A.Y.2014-15 are exactly similar as appearing in ITA No.137/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2013-14 both on issue of delay in filing appeal before this Bench and also with regard to the fact that Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of assessee due to huge inordinate delay for moving the rectification application as per Section 154(7) of the Act, therefore, my decision rendered in ITA No.137/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2013-14 shall mutatis mutandis apply in ITA No.140/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2014-15. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.140/RPR/2026, A.Y.2014-15 is dismissed as per aforesaid terms. ITA Nos.138 & 139/RPR/2026 A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2014-15 9. Coming to the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.138/RPR/2026 for A.Y.2013-14, there is no delay in f....