ADORN WIRELINKS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD V. I.T.O. WARD 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

ITA 602/AHD/2025

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Adorn Wirelinks Private Limited against the orders of the Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), Panaji, for the Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2019-20. The appeals were dismissed due to significant delays in filing, which the Addl. CIT(A) did not condone. The Tribunal found that the delays were excessively long (3589 days for AY 2013-14 and 1831 days for AY 2019-20) and attributed to the negligence of the assessee's counsel, which did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation under the law. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a liberal yet reasonable approach to condonation of delay, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839068 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur, Mani Ram Seva Nyasi Sangh Ayodhya vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KETAKI DESAI
• Assessee Lawyers: CHIRAG SHAH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 601 & 602/AHD/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2019-20 Adorn Wirelinks Private Limited, G-10, Sanskar Appartment, Opp. Sakti school, Satellite, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380015 [PAN – AAFCA5647K] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380015 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Chirag Shah, A.R. Revenue by Ms. Ketaki Desai, SR- D.R Date of Hearing 12.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 O R D E R PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: These two appeals are filed by the assessee against separate orders of the Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), Panaji, (hereinafter referred as “Addl. CIT(A)”) dated 06.03.2025 for the Assessment Years (AY) 2013-14 and 2019-20 respectively, in the proceedings u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. As the facts involved in these two appeals are identical, both the matters were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 601 & 602/Ahd/2025 Adorn Wirelinks Private Limited Vs.ITO, AY-2013-14 & 2019-20 2 order for the sake of convenience. We will first take up the appeal in ITA No. 601/Ahd/2025. ITA No. 601/Ahd/2025 : A.Y. 2013-14 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for AY 2013-14 on 07.10.2013 and an intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act was sent by the CPC on 29.05.2014, wherein certain adjustments were made. 4. Aggrieved with the adjustments made while processing the return, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided by the Addl. CIT(A) vide the impugned order The Ld. Addl. CIT(A) did not condone the delay in filing of appeal before him and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine. 5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. Addl. CIT(A), the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: 1. The assessment order passed u/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the first appellate authority u/s 250 is bad in law and deserved to be uncalled for. 2. The assessing officer as well as first appellate authority has erred in law and on facts in making and confirming respectively the addition of Rs. 10,20,983/-. The same deserves to be deleted. 3. The appellant craves to reserve his right to add, alter, amend, or delete any ground of appeal during the course of hearing. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 601 & 602/Ahd/2025 Adorn Wirelinks Private Limited Vs.ITO, AY-2013-14 & 2019-20 3 6. Shri Chirag Shah, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) did not consider the grounds taken by the assessee on merits and had dismissed the appeal of the assessee without condoning the delay in filing of appeal. He explained that the delay was due to lapse on the part of the counsel of the assessee, who did not file the appeal in time. The Ld. AR, therefore, requested that the matter may be set aside to the file of Ld. Addl. CIT(A) with a direction to condone the delay and thereafter adjudicate the grounds taken by the assessee on merits. 7. Per contra, Ms. Ketaki Desai, Ld. SR.-DR submitted that there was a delay of 3589 days in filing of appeal before the Ld. Addl. CIT(A). She submitted that the explanation of the assessee for the delay does not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay. Further that the assessee did not give any cogent reason for such inordinate delay of more than 9 years in filing of the appeal. She submitted that that mistake of the counsel was rightly not considered as sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Therefore, the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) had rightly rejected the appeal of the assessee. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. It is settled position of law that delay occurred in filing the appeal should be considered liberally. At the same time, it is also settled law that there is no general proposition that mistake of the Counsel by itself is always sufficient ground for condonation of delay. Every case is required to be considered on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur [2013] (5 CTC 547), while dealing with the issue on the delay of seven years in filing an appeal, had held as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 601 & 602/Ahd/2025 Adorn Wirelinks Private Limited Vs.ITO, AY-2013-14 & 2019-20 4 15. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non- pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The terms \"sufficient cause\" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact- situation. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. (viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. [Emphasis supplied.] Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 601 & 602/Ahd/2025 Adorn Wirelinks Private Limited Vs.ITO, AY-2013-14 & 2019-20 5 9. In the present case, the inordinate delay of 3859 days calls for a strict approach and the principles or guidelines given by the Supreme Court in the above-said decision on the conduct that cannot be favourably considered, are clearly attracted to the facts of the present case. The Hon’ble Court had further observed that increasing tendency to perceive delay as a non- serious matter requires to be curbed. In the present case, we find that the assessee was lackadaisical in its approach and it had tried to seek condonation of delay in a nonchalant manner. The assessee had filed a request for condonation of delay vide affidavit of one Shri Rathod Laljibhai Vajesang, which is reproduced below: 10. The assessee being a company, the application for condonation of delay should have been filed either by the Managing Director or Director Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 601 & 602/Ahd/2025 Adorn Wirelinks Private Limited Vs.ITO, AY-2013-14 & 2019-20 6 or CEO/Company Secretary of the assessee company. The status of Shri Laljibhai Rathod who had filed the affidavit is not mentioned in the application. It was explained that Shri Laljibhai Rathod was the counsel authorized by the company to file the appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Thus, the condonation application was filed by a third person and not by any authorized person competent to file such application. The delay in filing of the appeal has been explained solely due to negligence of the said Shri Laljibhai Rathod. It is evident from the affidavit that the delay in filing in appeal was caused not only for this assessment year i.e. A.Y.203-14 but also in A.Ys. 2017-18 and A.Y. 2019-20. When the assessee had handed over the intimation order for subsequent years i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 and 2019-20, it should have enquired about the status of appeal for the earlier A.Y. 2013-14, the documents of which were handed over to Shri Laljibhai Rathod earlier. It is thus found that there was gross negligence on the part of the assessee and it had not exercised any care to enquire about the status of the appeal and merely tried to shift the responsibility towards the counsel. The assessee cannot escape by merely passing on the blame for delay in filing the appeal to the counsel. The attitude of the assessee was of gross negligence as it did not watch the affairs. The explanation of the assessee for delay in filing the appeal is, therefore, not found to be bonafide. 11. The parameters laid down by the Supreme Court when not to condone delay, as reproduced earlier, get squarely attracted to the facts of the present case. We do not find that the explanation rendered for the delay was either sufficient or one which would inspire confidence. In the case of Mani Ram Seva Nyasi Sangh Ayodhya vs. CIT, 119 taxmann.com 3838 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it was the duty of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 601 & 602/Ahd/2025 Adorn Wirelinks Private Limited Vs.ITO, AY-2013-14 & 2019-20 7 assessee to watch the affairs of its firm and the delay of few days or months can be considered but delay of years is required to be examined minutely. As already discussed earlier, there was gross negligence on the part of the assessee and it had not exercised any care to ensure that the appeal was filed within time and this approach continued for year after year. We, therefore, are of considered opinion that the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) was correct in not condoning the delay in filing of the appeal and in dismissing the appeal on that score. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 602/Ahd/2025: A.Y. 2019-20 12. The facts involved in this case and the grounds taken by the assessee in this year are identical to ITA No. 601/Ahd/2025. There was a delay of 1831 days in filing of appeal for this year before the First Appellate Authority which was not condoned by the Ld. Addl. CIT(A). The delay in filing of appeal for this year also was explained due to the default of the counsel. The decision taken by us in ITA No. 601/Ahd/2025 is applicable mutatis mutandis to the present appeal as well. Accordingly, we upheld the order of the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 13. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 18/02/2026 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated - 18th February, 2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 601 & 602/Ahd/2025 Adorn Wirelinks Private Limited Vs.ITO, AY-2013-14 & 2019-20 8 Nk True Copy आदेश आदेश आदेश आदेश क\u0002 क\u0002 क\u0002 क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप \u0003ितिलिप \u0003ितिलिप \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत अ ेिषत अ ेिषत अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ\u0007 / The Appellant 2. \b यथ\u0007 / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु (अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय \bितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण / DR, ITAT, 6. गाड\u0014 फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, उप उप उप उप/सहायक सहायक सहायक सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकार पंजीकार पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण अिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "