Whether the delay of 304 days in filing the appeal deserved to be condoned in absence of any explanation or affidavit ? 

In the complex world of appellate tax litigation, time isn’t just a procedural formality it’s often the deciding factor between justice and finality. 

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench, recently delivered a detailed order in the case of Mikal Bhupendrabhai Patel vs. ITO, Ward 1(3)(1), Petlad, [ITA Nos. 473 & 474/Ahd/2025, AYs 2011–12 & 2012–13], where the appeal was dismissed solely due to an inordinate delay of 304 days coupled with persistent non-compliance by the assessee across all stages of proceedings. 

Case in Brief

The case revolves around an assessee who had not filed any return of income for AY 2011–12. The department received information regarding cash deposits exceeding ₹10 lakh in his IndusInd Bank account during FY 2010–11. Consequently, the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147 and issued notice u/s 148. 

Despite multiple statutory notices, reminders, and even a final show-cause notice, no return or explanation was filed by the assessee. The assessment was thus completed ex-parte under section 144 r.w.s. 147, and the entire deposits — amounting to ₹53.15 lakh — were treated as unexplained money under section 69A. 

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC] upheld the order, citing continuous non-prosecution. The CIT(A) also noted that “law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights,” holding that the assessee had shown no effort to substantiate his claim or rebut the AO’s findings. 

Factual Background 

After receiving information regarding high-value cash deposits, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 to reopen the case. The assessee neither filed a return nor responded to subsequent notices u/s 142(1), 271(1)(b), or the final show-cause dated 02.11.2018. 

In absence of any response, the AO assessed the total income at ₹53.15 lakh, invoking section 69A for unexplained cash and credit entries aggregating to ₹17.16 lakh and ₹28.10 lakh respectively. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and interest under sections 234A/B/C/D were also initiated. 

Before the CIT(A), the assessee again failed to appear despite multiple hearing notices issued through the NFAC portal. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and also upheld on merits, as the assessee failed to produce even a single supporting document. 

When the matter reached the ITAT, the pattern repeated — repeated adjournment requests, no appearance, and finally, a 304-day delay in filing the appeal without any explanation or affidavit for condonation. 

Issues Before the Tribunal 

Whether the delay of 304 days in filing the appeal deserved to be condoned in absence of any explanation or affidavit. 
Whether the Tribunal could entertain an appeal on merits despite consistent non-compliance before all lower authorities. 

Tribunal’s Findings 

The ITAT noted that the assessee had not filed any condonation application or supporting affidavit explaining the delay. The conduct showed clear lack of diligence and bona fides. 

The Tribunal observed that “sufficient cause” must be backed by reasonable and bona fide reasons, not by negligence or casualness. Since there was no cause shown at all, the ITAT held that the delay could not be condoned. 

Moreover, even if the delay were ignored, the continued pattern of non-compliance before the AO, CIT(A), and ITAT demonstrated that the assessee was not serious in pursuing the matter. Hence, the appeal was dismissed in limine as time-barred, without going into the merits. 

Takeaway for Professionals 

This decision reaffirms a foundational truth of appellate practice — procedural discipline is substantive justice. 
Even a strong case on merits can collapse if not pursued diligently and within the prescribed time limits. 

A delay of 304 days may sound like a number, but in the legal realm, it represents a lapse of right — one that cannot be resurrected without genuine cause. 

As professionals, this case reminds us of two non-negotiables in appellate advocacy: 

• Timely action backed by documented diligence, and 

• Continuous engagement at every stage, from assessment to appeal. 

Justice may be delayed — but a delayed appeal often means justice denied. 

Print