IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “SMC” SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

ITA Nos. 645 & 646/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Gopal Bhaskar Chaudhari, ITO Ward 3 Block No. 13 Sundram Co-op. 7th floor, 8th floor, 9th Fortune Housing Soc. Near Mokarji Circle Vs. Square, II, Road, Chala, Vapi-

GIDC Vapi-Pardi Valsad, 396191.

Valsad-396195 PAN NO. ABMPC 1386 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None for the assessee Revenue by : Mr. J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 08/10/2025

ORDER

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated 26.02.2024, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)”] for the Assessment Year 2011–12, the first relating to quantum assessment proceedings and the second pertaining to penalty proceedings. Since both appeals involve interconnected issues and arise out of the same set of facts, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and uniformity.

2. At the very outset, we find from the record that both these appeals have been filed belatedly with a delay of 401 days beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The Registry had duly pointed out this defect and intimated the assessee vide communication dated 05.06.2025, requesting him to file a proper application for condonation of delay, supported by an affidavit and relevant documentary evidence explaining the reasons for such delay.

3. Despite such opportunity and intimation, the assessee has neither filed any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, nor submitted any affidavit or explanation for the delay. It is a matter of record that even till the date of hearing before us, no attempt has been made to regularize the delay or to demonstrate any “sufficient cause” for the same.

4. Despite notifying for hearing also neither anyone attended nor any application for adjournment was filed before us and therefore, we were of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, hence same was heard exparte qua the assessee after hearing arguments of ld Departmental Representative.

5. Under Section 253(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, an appeal before this Tribunal is required to be filed within sixty days from the date of communication of the order appealed against. The Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay in filing such appeal only upon satisfaction that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting it within the prescribed time. The term “sufficient cause” is borrowed from Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which mandates that delay may be condoned where the appellant demonstrates bona fide circumstances beyond his control, preventing timely filing.

6. The law on condonation of delay, though to be construed liberally in furtherance of justice, equally demands that the litigant must show reasonable diligence and bona fides. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark judgment of Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) observed that substantial justice should not be sacrificed on the altar of technicalities; however, the Court simultaneously cautioned that “every day’s delay must be explained” with candour and credibility.

7. Similarly, in Ramlal & Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. [AIR 1962 SC 361], it is held that while the law of limitation is based on sound public policy, prescribing certainty and finality in litigation, the condonation of delay cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must be founded upon a satisfactory explanation covering the entire period of default.

8. Again, in Basawaraj & Anr. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that though a liberal approach may be adopted in interpreting “suffi