TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed ignoring the facts and merits of the case. B. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering that the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 23.03.2021 was issued without proper sanction and liable to be quashed, with the proceedings consequent to such notice also deserving to be quashed. C. For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 23.03.2021 was issued for the AY 2015-16, with the sanction of the Nellore Range, even though four years had elapsed from the end of the AY and sanction of the jurisdictional PCIT / CIT ought to have been obtained. D. Without prejudice to the above two immediately preceding grounds of appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 1050 days, even though sufficient reasons existed for the delay in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). E. For that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant does not stand to gain by delaying the filing of appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). F. For that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have noted that when substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authority. It was, thus, the claim of the assessee that as the delay in filing of the appeal was not deliberate but due to circumstances beyond his control, therefore, the same in all fairness and in the interest of justice be condoned. However, we find that the CIT(A) did not find favour with the explanation of the assessee and after drawing support from a host of judicial pronouncements refrained from exercising his discretion vested with him and condone the inordinate delay of 1050 days involved in the appeal before him. For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull out the observations of the CIT(A), as under: "4. DECISION: I have gone through the facts of the case. As per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act, there should be sufficient cause for the appellant for not presenting the appeal within the time allowed. The relevant provision is as under:- "The Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period." Under section 249(3) of the Act, the appellate authority may, on good and sufficient reason for the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of delay is not tenable. In view of the above, the delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned. 4.2. It is clear that the assessee has no reasonable cause for such a delay of 1050 days in filing the appeal. 4.3. Hence, in the absence of convincing evidence, the request for condonation of delay is liable to be rejected. Therefore, it is held that the assessee did not have a sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time. 4.4. In condoning the delay the appellate authority must be satisfied that there has been due diligence on the part of the appellant and it was not guilty of negligence. The sufficient cause within the contemplation of these provisions must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. Further, the language used in section 249(3) is "sufficient cause" and not "reasonable cause", "Sufficient cause' is much more stringent that the term 'reasonable cause' and even if a cause is reasonable, it has to be ascertained whether it was a sufficient cause or not. 4.5. While deciding the prayer for condonation of delay, the court/appellate authority cannot ignore or give a go-by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cient cause. There are no categories of sufficient cause. The categories of sufficient cause are never exhausted. Each case spells out a unique experience to be dealt with by the Court as such." 4.7. Further, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ram Mohan Kabra (2002) 257 ITR 773 (P & H) held as under: "The provisions relating to prescription of limitation in every statute must not be construed so liberally that it would have the effect of taking away the benefit accruing to the other party in a mechanical manner. Where the legislature spells out a period of limitation, and provides for power to condone the delay as well, there such delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence. Now, it is a settled principle of law that the provisions relating to specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigorous and effective consequences." 4,8 The Delhi High Court in the case of Surinder Kumar Boveja vs. CWT (2006) 287 ITR 52 (Del) held as under: "In order to get condonation of delay in filling of an appeal, a party has to show sufficient cause. Sufficient cause means a caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atutory obligations; Outlining the provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act, Tribunal opines that expression 'sufficient cause' is commonly referred in the provisions of Order 22 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the Court while allowing any application/appeal is required to draw distinction between 'inordinate delay' and 'delay' that would deprive a party of the protection of Section 5; States that the Courts have time and again held that where the mandatory provision is not complied with and the delay is not properly, satisfactorily, convincingly explained then the Court cannot condone the delay on sympathetic grounds alone; Tribunal emphasizes that the law of Limitation is enshrined in the legal maxim "Interest Reipublicae Ut Sit Finis Litium" which means that "it is for the general welfare that interest must be put to litigation"; ITAT elucidates that "to condone delay in a mechanical manner may amount to jeopardizing the legislative intent behind Section 5 of Limitation Act"; Emphasizes that discretion under Section 5 of Limitation Act has to be exercised duly informed by reasons and not based on whims or fan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. In the case of Jagdish Lal and Others v. State of Haryana (1996) 6 SCC 267 wherein it was observed by the Hon'ble court that the appellant kept on sleeping for the period and suddenly decided to file the appeal. In the case of Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (2010) 5 SCC 4591, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that even while a liberal approach is desirable in condoning the delay of short duration, stricter approach is required to be applied in cases of inordinate delay. Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan & Others, in the case of M/s. Binami Cement Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Others, (S.B. (sales Tax) Revision Petition No. 556/2011) decided that delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned for the reason that appellant failed to explain the specifically the delay for the particular period. It has been held that the courts, including the Supreme Court, no doubt have recommended liberal approach in considering applications for condonation of delay, yet the concepts such as liberal approach, justice oriented approach and substantial justice cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n, Advocate, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, "Ld. AR") for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that the assessee during the subject year was serving as an Office Peon and as on date is an Office Assistant. The Ld. AR submitted that the cash deposits of Rs. 1,35,66,000/- in the bank account No.00000000006151765282 of the assessee with Indian Bank pertained to the commission agency business relating to procurement of paddy husk by the assessee's father, viz., Shri Gownder Raju Aunty, who had engaged in procurement of paddy husk from rice mills of Andhra Pradesh and would sell the same to businessmen in Tamil Nadu. The Ld. AR to buttress his contention had drawn our attention to an affidavit of Shri Gownder Raju Aunty (supra), dated 11/05/2026, wherein he had deposed the said facts. However, the Ld. AR (who was accompanied with the assessee's father) on being queried about the rice mills from whom paddy husk was procured, failed to comeforth with any reply. 7. Apropos the delay of 1050 days involved in filing of the appeal before the CIT(A), the Ld. AR reiterated that the same had crept in for the reason that the assessee had remained un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....material available on record. 10. Admittedly, it is a matte of fact discernible from the record that as the assessee had delayed the filing of the appeal before the CIT(A), the latter not being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee regarding the reasons leading to the delay had declined to condone the same and had dismissed the appeal in limine. 11. At the threshold, we may herein observe that the delay of 1050 days involved in the appeal before the CIT(A) is inordinate. Also, we concur with the Ld. DR that the explanation of the assessee regarding the reason leading to the delay in filing of the appeal, i.e., his unawareness about the framing of the assessment vide an ex-parte order does not inspire any confidence. We say so, for the reason that the conduct of the assessee can safely be gathered from the fact that he had even pursuant to notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 23/03/2021 not filed his return of income, as well as failed to participate in the assessment proceedings, which, thus, had resulted to an ex-parte order under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 11/03/2022. We are further unable to comprehend that as to how the assessee coul....