Condonation of inordinate delay -Not without sufficient Cause: ITAT
Here is an interesting case before ITAT Hyderabad in Papaiah Pulipati vs. ITO (ITA Nos. 1243 & 1200/Hyd/2024, Dated 24.02.2025) wherein the delay condonation was rejected.
Let us have a Short Overview of the case:
The assessee, Papaiah Pulipati, filed appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] with an inordinate delay of:
1. 10 years, 10 months, and 19 days for Assessment Year 2010-11
2. 11 years, 3 months, and 5 days for Assessment Year 2011-12
Further, before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad, the appeals were also delayed by:
• 35 days for AY 2010-11
• 50 days for AY 2011-12
The assessee failed to provide a proper day-to-day explanation for the delay before CIT(A).
Legal Principle: Condonation of Delay
In taxation matters, delay in filing appeals is generally categorized into:
1. Normal Delay – A short delay where courts/tribunals adopt a lenient approach in the interest of substantial justice.
2. Inordinate Delay – A long, excessive delay that requires a strong justification, failing which, condonation is denied.
Inordinate delays, such as 10+ years in this case, are rarely condoned unless “sufficient cause” is demonstrated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Tribunal’s Observations and Decision
A. Lack of Sufficient Cause for Delay
• The assessee failed to provide a justifiable reason for the prolonged delay before CIT(A).
• Even before ITAT, no valid explanation was given for the additional delays of 35 and 50 days.
• Day-to-day explanation, which is a key requirement for condonation, was absent.
B. Reliance on Supreme Court Judgment
ITAT cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) v. Spl. Deputy Collector, LA (SLP (Civil) No. 31248/2018, Dated 08.04.2024).
In that case, the Supreme Court refused to condone a delay of 5-6 years in filing an appeal before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that excessive delays without justification cannot be condoned simply in the interest of justice.
Given that the delay in the present case was even longer (10+ years), ITAT applied the same principle and dismissed the appeals.
Strict Interpretation of Limitation Law
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, allows condonation only when the appellant demonstrates a “sufficient cause.”
Since the assessee failed to show any valid reason, the Tribunal found no basis to grant relief.
No Infirmity in CIT(A)’s Order
Since the assessee’s appeals before CIT(A) were time-barred and the delay was not justifiable, CIT(A)’s decision to reject them was upheld.
ITAT found no error in CIT(A)’s order and confirmed it.
Final Decision
ITAT dismissed the appeals (ITA Nos. 1200 & 1243/Hyd/2024) due to an inordinate delay of over 10 years without a valid explanation.
The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court’s approach in rejecting condonation of excessive delays.
The Copy Of the order is as under:
