TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 874
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Tribunal. In this regard, the assessee had filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit, dated 11.02.2026. The relevant contents of the said affidavit are extracted as follows: 3. That having carefully considered the contents of the affidavit and the condonation petition, though the Ld. Sr. DR objected to the condonation of delay, I am of the considered view that delay of 466 days should be condoned since there is no deliberate or malafide intents found in the conduct of the assessee nor the Revenue has filed any counter affidavit providing any evidence to suggest that such delay had occurred due to any malafide conduct on the part of the assessee. 4. Taking guidance from the judicial pronouncements, viz. i) Collector, Land Acquisitio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w of limitation would first file appeal. In this case, it is clearly evident that the assessee was sleeping on his rights in filing the appeal and was highly negligent which resulted in such huge inordinate delay of more than 5 years. It is dictated by the Hon'ble Apex Court that delay cannot be condoned just on the basis of an Act of generosity and that the pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party. 7. The fact of the matter is that the assessee cannot take advantage of his own wrong. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest any sufficient cause for condonation of such delay before the First Appellate Authority or before this Bench. In fact, the appeal was time barred by 466....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 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 other words, there is no evidence to suggest that the assessee had acted bonafide and that there is no negligence on its part, therefore, findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for establishing such sufficient cause for such huge delay of 9 years 233 days. That at the same time, no materials were brought on record to even suggest that the assessee was vigilant enough and that the delay had occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. That when there is huge delay of 9 years 233 days in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, it is a clear case of negligency of the assessee. That even within the connotation of 'justice oriented approach', it would be unfair towards Revenue to condone such delay and provide relief to the assessee on the ground of limitation where the assessee itself was negligent to comply with law of limitation. The scales of justice are always to be balanced and on a c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....which allowed the civil revision preferred by the assessee that the delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity. The Hon'ble Apex Court had emphasized that reasons explained by the assessee should be bonafide and that there shall be no negligence on the part of the assessee. The Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that delay should not be condoned merely as an Act of generosity and that the pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party. 10. That any prudent person being aggrieved by the order of the A.O would have immediately filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. In this case, however, the assessee chooses to wait for nearly 10 years and then had filed the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eclare, as under: That, appellate order u/s250 for the AY17-18 was passed on 26-06-2024 by Addl/ JCIT (A)-10, Mumbai, in which the appeal was dismissed. Against the said dismissal of appellate order dt.26-06-2024, appeal in Form No.35 before the 3. Honorable ITAT, Raipur has been filed on 10-12-2025, resulting in delay of 466 days. That, I am posted as a teacher in govt. school situated in remote village named Marwahi which is approximately 60 kms away from Pendra Road railway station and 130 Kms from Bilaspur district headquarter. The nearest city where I was able to find CA for handling appeal to AT was Bilaspur which was nearly 130 kms away. 4. That, I was unaware of the dismissal of the appellate order and at the....