ORIENT CERATECH LIMITED,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA V. DCIT, CIR-2(1), JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT

SA 1/RJT/2026

AI Insights

Orient Ceratech Limited filed a stay application against a disputed demand of Rs.15,29,61,540 for the Assessment Year 2017-18, claiming deductions under section 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, which had been previously upheld by the Delhi High Court and the ITAT, Rajkot Bench in earlier cases. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a 64-day delay in filing, which the assessee argued was covered by a Supreme Court judgment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the Tribunal noted the absence of a formal condonation application and the lack of merit adjudication by the CIT(A), leading to the rejection of the stay application and restoration of the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831554 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2026
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No.991/2020, 1078/20100
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: G. R. SANGHAVI; LD
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Onus to prove; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Application of stay
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Stay Application (SA) No. 01/RJT/2026 (arising out of I.T.A No.10/RJT/2026) Ǔनधा[रणवष[ / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Orient Ceratech Limited, 3rd Floor, Lawrence and Mayo House, 276 D N Road, Mumbai 400001 (Maharashtra) Vs. DCIT, CIR-2(1), Jamnagar 361001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAACO0221C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri G.R. Sanghavi, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 19/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: By way of this application for the Assessment Year 2017-18, the assessee seeks stay of the disputes demand of Rs.15,29,61,540/-. . 2. The Learned Counsel, at the outset, submitted that the assessee has been claiming deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act, since the Assessment Year 2002-03 and in the assessee’s case, the issue pertaining to deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in ITA No.991/2020, 1078/20100 dated 31.07.2014, and Hon’ble ITAT, Rajkot Bench in assessee’s own case. However, since the assessee’s case is squarely Printed from counselvise.com SA 01/RJT/2025 (AY-2022-23) Ankur Ch. Vyas v. ITO 2 covered on merit in its favour, despite of this, the Ld.CIT(A) did not adjudicate the issue on merit, and dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay in filing the appeal. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee, in limine, on account of delay and did not condone the delay of 64 days. 3. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that Ld.CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay of 64 days, as it is covered by the Suo-moto writ petition of Hon’ble Supreme Court in MA 21 of 2022, dated 10.01.2022. The Ld.Counsel also stated that in this case, the assessing officer framed the order on 24.05.2021, therefore the assessee supposed to file appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) on before 23 June 2021. However, the actual appeal filed before the Ld.CIT(A) was on 21.08.2021. Hence there is delay of 64 days in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel, also argued that the assessee did not file any petition for condonation of delay before the Ld.CIT(A), since the delay was covered by the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in MA No. 21 of 2022 dated 10.01.2022 (supra). The Ld. Counsel further stated that issue involved in assessee’s case is covered in favour of assessee, hence, this Tribunal may grant the stay on the disputed demand of Rs.15,29,51,540/-. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that without filing the application for condonation of delay before the Ld.CIT(A), the delay should not be condoned, even if the delay is covered by the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Since the assessee did not file the petition for condonation of delay before the Ld.CIT(A), therefore, Ld.CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeal of the assessee on account of delay. Since, the assessee’s appeal was not admitted by the Ld.CIT(A) and there is no adjudication on merit by Ld.CIT(A), hence Stay should not be granted to the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com SA 01/RJT/2025 (AY-2022-23) Ankur Ch. Vyas v. ITO 3 5. We have heard both the parties. We note that the assessee has submitted before us Stay application and is seeking stay on impugned demand, however, we note that the assessee’s appeal was not admitted by the Ld.CIT(A) and the impugned order of ld.CIT(A) before us, is an ex-parte order. We note that Ld.CIT(A) has not admitted the appeal of the assessee for adjudication on merit. Therefore, in these circumstances the stay on demand is not granted to the assessee, as there is no final outcome on merit, (decision on merit) by ld.CIT(A), which is the impugned order before us. Moreover, assessee was negligent in his approach and did not appear before the learned CIT(A). We also find that the assessee did not file the petition for condonation of delay before the Ld.CIT(A), and therefore the Ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. In these circumstances, stay application of the assessee, should be rejected. 6. Now coming to the delay in filing the appeal, (for 64 days), before the Ld.CIT(A). We note that while deciding the prayer for condonation of delay, the court/appellate authority cannot ignore or give a go-by to the basic principle that the burden to prove the existence of sufficient cause is always on the assessee, and there is no presumption that the delay occasioned in the filing of the appeal is always bona fide and the condonation of delay is not the matter of right. Even though a liberal approach has to be adopted, but that does not mean that any plea without any plausible or acceptable basis and not even bearing semblance or rationality has to be accepted, and delay has to be condoned. That shall be against the very spirit of law. Further, it is the party concerned to explain the reasons for delay and it is not the function of the appellate authority to find the cause of the delay. 7. In the assessee`s case under consideration, we find that assessee did not approach the learned CIT(A), with a formal pray, to condone the delay of 64 days. The assessee even did not file the petition for condonation of delay before learned Printed from counselvise.com SA 01/RJT/2025 (AY-2022-23) Ankur Ch. Vyas v. ITO 4 CIT(A). A formal application for condonation of delay must have been filed by the assessee, before the learned CIT(A), which the assessee has failed to do so, therefore, learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay. We note that Law assists those persons who are awake, not those persons who sleep on their own rights. The legal maxim “Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt”. Law is meant for the vigilant, and not for those who slumber and sleep. This rule is designed to promote diligence on the part of suitors, discourage laches (unreasonable delay). 8.However, the learned Counsel for the assessee, now submitted before the bench, the reason for delay and sufficient cause of the delay, and urged the Bench to condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal before Ld.CIT(A). We have gone through the reasons and sufficient cause explained by the learned Counsel for the assessee, and noted that the Hon`ble Supreme Court in suo-moto writ petition, vide M.A. No.21 of 2022, dated 10.01.2022, condoned the delay in filing the various appeals, due to COVID-19 pandemic, as follows: 5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the M.A. No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. II.Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. III.In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. Printed from counselvise.com SA 01/RJT/2025 (AY-2022-23) Ankur Ch. Vyas v. ITO 5 IV.It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 6. As prayed for by learned Senior Counsel, M.A. No. 29 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn.” 9.We note that delay in filing the appeal for 64 days, before learned CIT(A), is covered by the above judgement of the Hon`ble Supreme Court (supra), and delay was because of COVID-19 pandemic, therefore, we condone the delay of 64 days, in filing the appeal before learned CIT(A). 10.We note that the impugned order, before us, is the order of learned CIT(A), where the learned CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 64 days in filing the appeal, and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. There is no adjudication by learned CIT(A), on merit. Therefore, since there is no adjudication, on merit, by the lower Authority, hence stay on demand cannot be granted, as we have noted above that first of all, the appeal should be admitted by the lower authorities and there should be adjudication, on merit, by the lower authorities to grant the stay on demand. The assessee never appeared before learned CIT( A). The assessee`s appeal was not admitted by the ld CIT(A) and not adjudicated by the ld.CIT(A), on merit, hence in these situations, we declined to grant the stay on demand, hence, stay application of the assessee is hereby rejected. 11. However, we accept the prayer of the assessee to the effect that after condonation of delay, the matter may be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, on merit. Since, we have condoned the delay in filing the appeal before learned CIT(A), hence we set aside the order of CIT(A) and remand the various issues raised by the assessee, in the grounds of appeal, for fresh consideration by the ld.CIT(A), with a liberty to the assessee to prove Printed from counselvise.com SA 01/RJT/2025 (AY-2022-23) Ankur Ch. Vyas v. ITO 6 his case by producing sufficient evidence/material/case law to the satisfaction of the ld.CIT(A). For statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 12. Therefore, we reject the Stay Application No. 01/Rjt/2026 of the assessee, and the assessee’s appeal is restored back to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for statistical purposes, in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 19/01/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rajkot Ǒदनांक/ Date: 19/01/2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By Order Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Rajkot Printed from counselvise.com "