IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICILA MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year 2021-2022)

M/s Lupmex Vincom Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor, 28, Bhairab Dutta Lane, Howrah, Salkia, Pin- 711106 [PAN: AAACL8729J] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs.

ITO, Ward 12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata - 700069 ................................ Respondent Appearances by:

Assessee represented by : None Department represented by : Abhijit Adhikary, Addl.CIT Date of concluding the hearing : 25.06.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 30.06.2025

O R D E R

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

1. This appeal arises from order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order dated

27.03.2024.

1.1. In this case, it is seen that effective hearings started on 28.08.2024, on which date an AR attended for seeking adjournment. Thereafter, on 25.04.2024, 03.02.2025, 01.04.2025 and finally on the last date of hearing (25.06.2025), none have attended on behalf of the assessee or sought any adjournment. Accordingly, it is decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication.

2. It is seen that the ITAT Registry has reported a delay of 01 day, for which, as per record, a defect notice was sent dated 29.05.2024. This notice inter alia contained details of defects, including the non-filing of a petition for condoning the delay. It is seen that this defect notice was also not responded to. In result, the delay is not to be condoned.

3. At this stage, we need to discuss the duty of an assessee for filing a petition for condoning any delay. Howsoever short, as in this case, through an affidavit. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that the law of limitation being substantive, the power of discretion to condone the delay is to be exercised judiciously and cannot be exercised in a routine manner. The parties are expected to approach the Court in adherence to this general principle. Thus, filing an appeal is the rule and condoning the delay is the exception, wherein the Courts have to exercise their discretionary power judiciously and by recording reasons. Excessive delay, as in this case, cannot be simply missed away by casually mentioning that the Principal Officer was hard pressed for time. Such casually explained delay is to be construed as an uncondonable delay. Once there is a delay, the person who is filing the condonation petition is expected to furnish the reason which must be acceptable to this Bench.

3.1. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mu. Kat 1987 taxmann.com 1072/28 ELT 185, has observed that it is for the assesses to explain each and every day of delay in filing of appeal. Before us in the present case, no such petition/prayer/application for condonation of delay is filed much less a sufficient and satisfactory explanation to prove that there is a reasonable cause for the said delay. In this case, it is evident that the appellant has conveniently decided not to justify the delay in filing by informing this Bench on the detailed reasons, for which the appeal could not be filed in time.

4.0. At this juncture, it is necessary to delve into the genesis of limitation and how a judicial forum needs to deal with matters pertaining to condonation of delay.

4.1. Almost all the tax laws, whether they relate to direct taxes or Indirect taxes, contain provisions for condonation of delay in filing appeals, if the appellant (whether it is the taxpayer or the revenue proves to the satisfaction of the appellate authority that be had sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within time. The genesis for such provisions can be traced to section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which reads as follows:

"Extension of prescribed period in certain cases. Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions