Facts of the Case

The assessee filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring a total income of ₹8,30,470. The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore issued an intimation under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, assessing the total income at ₹16,12,650.

Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which partly allowed the appeal by deleting an addition of ₹4,94,698 while sustaining an addition of ₹2,87,478 under the head “Income from Other Sources”. The assessee thereafter preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal with a delay of 824 days.

 Issues Involved

  1. Whether the assessee had shown “sufficient cause” for condonation of an inordinate delay of 824 days under section 253(5) of the Income-tax Act.
  2. Whether reasons such as change of residence and lack of communication with counsel constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay.
  3. Whether an appeal can be admitted when the assessee remained negligent despite the appellate order being available on the Income-tax e-filing portal.

 Petitioner’s (Assessee’s) Arguments

The assessee submitted that the delay occurred because she had shifted to Mumbai during the relevant period and had forgotten to contact her counsel. It was further contended that the counsel was also unable to contact the assessee due to change of address. The assessee claimed that she became aware of the NFAC order only upon returning to Allahabad in July 2025 and prayed for condonation of delay in the interest of justice.

 Respondent’s (Revenue’s) Arguments

The Department opposed the condonation of delay, contending that the assessee had failed to demonstrate any sufficient cause for such an extraordinary delay. It was argued that the appellate order was duly uploaded on the Income-tax portal and could have been accessed by the assessee from any location. The Revenue submitted that mere negligence and lack of diligence cannot be grounds for condonation.

Court Order / Findings

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed after a delay of 824 days beyond the statutory period prescribed under section 253(3) of the Act. After examining the affidavit and application for condonation of delay, the Tribunal held that the reasons furnished were vague, unsupported by evidence, and did not establish bona fide conduct.

Relying upon the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Esha Bhattacharjee vs Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Academy and Basawaraj vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, the Tribunal held that inordinate delay caused due to negligence and inaction cannot be condoned. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation.

 Important Clarification

The Tribunal clarified that the burden lies entirely on the assessee to demonstrate “sufficient cause” for delay and that liberal interpretation of limitation provisions does not extend to cases of complete inaction or lack of diligence. Once an appeal is dismissed on limitation, the merits of the case do not survive for adjudication.

Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1770627617_MEENUGOVINDPURALLAHABADVS.INCOMETAXOFFICERCPCNFACDELHIDELHI.pdf 

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.