M/S GAURAV CONSTRUCTION CO., KORBA, KORBA V. ITO-1, KORBA, KORBA

ITA 32/RPR/2026

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Gaurav Construction Co., which appealed against the order of the Income Tax Officer-1, Korba, for the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal was initially dismissed by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC due to a significant delay in filing. The assessee argued that the delay was justified and provided explanations, but the tribunal found no sufficient cause for such a prolonged delay. The tribunal referenced several Supreme Court judgments to support the decision that negligence and lack of sufficient cause for delay do not warrant condonation, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legal timelines.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 838443 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2026
• Other Referred Cases: H. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnaish, Thirunagalingam Vs. Lingeswaran & Anr.
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: R.B DOSHI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.32/RPR/2026 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ /Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/s. Gaurav Construction Co. House No.508, Agroha Marg, Nai Basti, Korba (C.G.)-495 677 PAN: AAGFG1237K .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer-1, Korba (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri R.B Doshi, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 10.02.2026 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 16.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com 2 M/s. Gaurav Construction Co. Vs. ITO-1, Korba ITA No.32/RPR/2026 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 12.11.2025 for the assessment year 2011-12 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. At the very outset, it is noted that the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground of huge inordinate delay in filing appeal of the assessee before the said authority. There is delay of 9 years and 233 days for filing the appeal by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC after considering the submissions of the assessee regarding condonation of the said inordinate delay, had dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that reasons for the said delay were explained before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC a/w. affidavit filed and therefore, once explanations were furnished, the number of days of delay is immaterial. 4. Per contra, the Ld. Sr. DR vehemently supported the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and submitted that there has been no evidence brought on record by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee to substantiate such huge delay nor sufficient cause for such condonation has been Printed from counselvise.com 3 M/s. Gaurav Construction Co. Vs. ITO-1, Korba ITA No.32/RPR/2026 brought out and such huge delay in filing an appeal itself shows that the assessee is negligent. In other words, there is no evidence to suggest that the assessee had acted bonafide and that there is no negligence on its part, therefore, findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC should be upheld. 5. I have heard the rival contentions, analyzed the facts and circumstances in this case. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had dismissed the appeal since there has been inordinate delay of 9 years 233 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the said authority. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that they have given their submissions before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and accordingly, the said authority should not have dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay itself. However, the fact of the matter is that the assessee cannot take advantage of its own wrong. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest any sufficient cause for condonation of such delay before the First Appellate Authority nor it has been established that there was no negligence on the part of the assessee for non-compliance regarding law of limitation. That the judicial principles dictates that such inordinate delay combined with negligence and lack of sufficiency of cause for the delay results in dismissal of the case on the ground of limitation itself. 6. That the Hon’ble Apex Court in certain judgments has held that justice oriented approach has to be considered while condoning the delay Printed from counselvise.com 4 M/s. Gaurav Construction Co. Vs. ITO-1, Korba ITA No.32/RPR/2026 of the assessee. The word ‘justice oriented approach’ also combines bonafideness on the part of the assessee as well as sufficient cause for such condonation of delay coupled with the merits of the matter. 7. In the present case, no evidence has been furnished for establishing such sufficient cause for such huge delay of 9 years 233 days. That at the same time, no materials were brought on record to even suggest that the assessee was vigilant enough and that the delay had occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee. That when there is huge delay of 9 years 233 days in filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, it is a clear case of negligency of the assessee. That even within the connotation of ‘justice oriented approach’, it would be unfair towards Revenue to condone such delay and provide relief to the assessee on the ground of limitation where the assessee itself was negligent to comply with law of limitation. The scales of justice are always to be balanced and on a careful examination of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the action of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for not condoning such huge, unreasonable and inordinate delay in absence of bonafideness of the assessee falls within the umbrella of justice oriented approach so to clearly spell out that in order to balance scales of justice negligent assessee shall not be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong. Printed from counselvise.com 5 M/s. Gaurav Construction Co. Vs. ITO-1, Korba ITA No.32/RPR/2026 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H. Guruswamy & Ors. Vs. A. Krishnaish since deceased by Lrs, CIVIL APPEAL No. 317 of 2025 (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.9719/2020), dated 08.01.2025 has held that while considering the plea for condonation of delay, the court must not start with the merits of the main matter. The court owes a duty to first ascertain the bona fides of the explanation offered by the party seeking condonation. It had further observed that once it is held that a party has lost his right to have the matter considered on merits because of his own inaction for long, it cannot be presumed to be non-deliberate delay and in such circumstances of the case, he cannot be heard to plead that the substantial justice deserves to be preferred as against the technical considerations. 9. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Thirunagalingam Vs. Lingeswaran & Anr., Civil Appeal No.(S)…….of 2025 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17575 of 2023] had held while setting aside the impugned order of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras which allowed the civil revision preferred by the assessee that the delay should not be condoned merely as an act of generosity. The Hon’ble Apex Court had emphasized that reasons explained by the assessee should be bonafide and that there shall be no negligence on the part of the assessee. The Hon’ble Apex Court emphasized that delay should not be condoned merely as an Act of Printed from counselvise.com 6 M/s. Gaurav Construction Co. Vs. ITO-1, Korba ITA No.32/RPR/2026 generosity and that the pursuit of substantial justice must not come at the cost of causing prejudice to the opposing party. 10. That any prudent person being aggrieved by the order of the A.O would have immediately filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. In this case, however, the assessee chooses to wait for nearly 10 years and then had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which is a clear case of gross negligence while ascertaining rights and liabilities through the process of law. In view of the aforesaid facts and above referred judicial pronouncements, finding no infirmity with the view taken by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, I uphold the same. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 16th day of February, 2026. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 16th February, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. Printed from counselvise.com 7 M/s. Gaurav Construction Co. Vs. ITO-1, Korba ITA No.32/RPR/2026 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur Printed from counselvise.com "